Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kusum Rani vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 3 February, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2023/RJJD/003841]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17062/2022
Kusum Rani D/o Shri Nawab Singh, Aged About 49 Years, R/o A-
12, Bothra Colony, Near Vaishno Dham, Jaipur Road, Bikaner,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Panchayat Raj Department, Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bikaner,
Rajasthan.
4. The Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prashant Panwar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kunal Upadhyay for Mr. Sunil
Beniwal, AAG
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
03/02/2023
1. The petitioner failed to appear for documents verification,
when the list of eligible candidates was published in the year
2013. When the selection process was re-convened, the
respondents did not publish the petitioner's name in the list of
eligible candidates citing that she has remained absent on the
earlier occasion.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue
involved in the present petition is squarely covered in petitioner's
favour by the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the
[2023/RJJD/003841] (2 of 3) [CW-17062/2022]
case of Hemraj vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S. B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 15629/2022) decided on 19.10.2022.
3. In the case of Hemraj (supra), this Court has observed
thus :-
"In view of the above discussion, the
petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed.
The respondents - State is directed to permit
the petitioners to participate in the document
verification pursuant to the exercise initiated
in terms of Circular dated 07.09.2022 at the
respective Zila Parishads, in case, their names
have appeared in the merit list and they have
obtained marks more than the cut-off of the
candidates, who have now been called for
document verification.
Further, in view of the fact that several
other candidates, similarly placed to the
petitioners, who could not/did not appear
during the course of document verification at
earlier stages and have obtained marks more
than the cut-off of the candidates, who have
been called for document verification now by
the respondents pursuant to Circular dated
07.09.2022 and have raised objections in this
regard with the respondents, with a view to
obviate the requirement of similarly placed
candidates to approach this Court for similar
relief and to ensure that the recruitment,
which is even otherwise delayed by about 10
years, now is concluded expeditiously, it
would be required of the respondents to afford
opportunity to such candidates as well to
appear for document verification i.e. those
whose name appeared in the merit list issued
earlier and they could not / did not appear for
document verification and have marks more
than the present cut-off and have raised
objections to the provisional merit list issued
by the respondents. For the said purpose, the
State might issue an advertisement in the
daily newspaper throughout the State
requiring the said candidates to appear for
document verification on a date to be fixed by
the State in this regard."
[2023/RJJD/003841] (3 of 3) [CW-17062/2022]
4. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of in
terms of the judgment rendered in the case of Hemraj (supra).
The petitioner shall be permitted to participate in the document
verification, in case, seats are still lying vacant in the Zila Parishad
concerned.
5. Mr. Kunal Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent-
State though not in a position to dispute the factual and legal
position, however, submits that an appeal (DB Special Appeal Writ
No.1115/2022) has been filed by the State against the order
rendered in Hemraj (supra) and the Division Bench in such appeal
has stayed the effect and operation of the order dated
19.10.2022, hence, similar order as in the case of Hemraj may not
be passed in petitioner's favour.
6. Having heard rival counsel, this Court is of the view that the
petitioner's case is not different than the case of Hemraj (supra)
and in case seats remain vacant and similar order is not passed,
the petitioner's right to take part in the selection process will be
adversely affected, if the Division Bench ultimately dismisses
State's appeal in case of Hemraj.
7. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
44-Taruna/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
