Tuesday, 23, Jun, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Maina Kumari vs The State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 258 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 258 Raj
Judgement Date : 9 January, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Maina Kumari vs The State Of Rajasthan on 9 January, 2023
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 594/2020

Maina Kumari D/o Sh. Balbir Singh W/o Sh. Rajender Kumar, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Chak 3 Y Tehsil And District Sriganganagar (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

2. Director, State Medical And Family Welfare Institute, Zhalana Institutional Area, Jaipur (Raj.).

3. The Additional Director (Administration), Medical And Health Services, Tilak Marg, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur.

4. Board Of Secondary Education, Ajmer, Through Its Secretary.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.R.Saharan. For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.S.Rajpurohit, AAG.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

09/01/2023

Mr. K.S.Rajpurohit, learned AAG puts in appearance on

behalf of respondents.

Copy of the petition has been supplied to him.

Learned counsel for the parties submit that the issue raised

in the present writ petition is covered by order in State of

Rajasthan vs. Ms. Firdos Tarannum & Anr.: D.B. Special Appeal

(W) No.534/2005 decided on 12.01.2022 and another order in

Santosh Swami Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.: D.B. Special Appeal

(2 of 3) [CW-594/2020]

(W) No.33/2021, decided on 08.03.2022, following the order in

the case of Ms. Firdos Tarannum (supra).

In the case of Santosh Swami (supra), the Division Bench

inter-alia observed as under:-

"Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the reason for upholding the results of the appellant in the matter of appointment pursuant to advertisement dated 18.06.2018 is on account of dispute with regard to recognition of qualification of Adeeb-Mahir. He would submit that in relation to earlier advertisement of the year 2000, involving identical issue of recognition of Adeeb-Mahir qualification, this court vide order dated 12.01.2022 passed in D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.534/2005 has held that all such qualifications issued prior to recall in the year 2011, have to be recognized.

Therefore, it is contended that the issue raised by the appellant is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment.

Counsel for the State would submit that the order passed in SAW No.534/2005 was related to only those cases where the result was withheld in the matter of selection/ appointment pursuant to advertisement of 2000, while in the present case, withholding of result was pursuant to advertisement of 2018. he would further submit that in the aforesaid decision, relief has been granted by this court directing the State authorities to consider the case of the appellants therein for appointment for the post in question according to merit position. He would submit that though on legal issue, this case is also covered, but appointments would be subject to availability of posts.

We find that the issue raised in this appeal is squarely covered by order dated 12.01.2022 passed in D.B.Spl. Appl. Writ No.534/2005 and as in the present case, admittedly, the qualification was obtained prior to withdrawal of recognition in the year 2011, the appellant, in this case, would also be entitled to similar relief as has been granted in the other case.

It goes without saying that the direction, which has been given in other case is also to be given in this case, would be subject to availability of the posts.

Accordingly, this appeal is also disposed off with a direction to the State authorities to consider the appellant for appointment for the post in question according to merit position and if appointed, to grant

(3 of 3) [CW-594/2020]

all consequential benefits except back wages for the past period. In other words, the appellant would have the benefit of seniority for the past period from the date the person below the petitioner in merit list was appointed"

In view of the submissions made, the petition filed by the

petitioner is disposed of in light of and with similar directions as

given in the case of Santosh Swami (supra).

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 2-AnilSingh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : LL

 
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter