The State Of Rajasthan vs Priyanka Gurjar D/O Shri Ratiram ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 832 Raj/2

[2023/RJJP/000558]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

            1. D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1162/2022

1.        The     State      Of     Rajasthan,            Through        Its   Secretary,
          Department Of Home, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur
2.        Inspector General Of Police, Bharatpur Range Bharatpur
          (Raj.).
3.        Director General Of Police, Jaipur (Raj.).
4.        Addl.     Director      General       Of    Police      (Appointment       And
          Promotion Board), Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
5.        The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
          Ajmer (Raj.).
                                                                         ----Appellants
                                           Versus
Radhika Singh D/o Shri Ranjeet Singh, Wife Of Shri Jitendra
Singh, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of 41 Moti Vihar, Near
Neelam Paradise Hotel, Sirsi Road, Panchyawala, District Jaipur
(Raj.).
                                                                       ----Respondent

2. D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1160/2022

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Home Secretary, Department Of Home, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

2. The Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Department Of Police Kota, Range Kota.

3. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its Secretary.

----Appellants Versus Pinki W/o Shri Vikas Togadiya, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Near Vayu Sainik Academy Khteri, District Jhunjhunu.

----Respondent

3. D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1161/2022

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Home Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Police Head Quarter, Lalkothi, Jaipur.

3. Addl. Director General Of Police, (Recruitment And

[2023/RJJP/000558] (2 of 6) [SAW-1162/2022]

Promotion) Rajasthan, Police Head Quarter, Lalkothi, Jaipur (Raj.)

4. Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment) Rajasthan, Police Head Quarter, Lalkothi, Jaipur (Raj.)

5. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (Raj.)

----Appellants Versus Sharma Gurjar D/o Ratan Lal W/o Sitaram Gurjar, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Barkheda, District Bundi At Present R/o Village And Post Ranipura, Tehsil Hindauli, District Bundi.

----Respondent

4. D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1164/2022

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarters, Near Nehru Place, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

----Appellants Versus Smt. Rajesh Janu D/o Shri Birma Ram Janu, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Ward No. 06, Village Seetsar, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu, Rajasthan.

----Respondent

5. D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1165/2022

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Addl. Director General Of Police, Recruitment And Promotion, Rajasthan.

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Station Road, Jaipur Road, Jaipur Through Its Through Secretary.

4. The Inspector General Of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur.

----Appellants Versus Priyanka Gurjar D/o Shri Ratiram Gurjar, Aged About 22 Years,

[2023/RJJP/000558] (3 of 6) [SAW-1162/2022]

R/o Dev Hospital, Karni Vihar-B, Road No.17, Vki Area, Jaipur Rajasthan

----Respondent

6. D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1166/2022

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Home, Secretariat, Jaipur, Government Of Rajasthan.

2. The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Police Head Quarter Lalkothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur Rajasthan.

3. Inspector General Of Police (Personnel), Rajasthan, Police Headquarter Lalkothi, Lalkothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur Rajasthan

4. Addl. Director General Of Police Recruitment And Prmotion, Rajasthan, Police Head Quarter, Lalkothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

5. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Station Road, Through Secretary Ajmer.

6. The Inspector General Of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur.

----Appellants Versus Sonu Sharma D/o Manohar Lal Sharma, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Quarter No. 1/5 Reserve Police Line, Currently Designated As District Special Force, Ajmer.

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Maharshi, Additional Advocate General with Ms. Kinjal Surana Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sweta Pareek Advocate Mr. Rajkumar Kasana Advocate on behalf of Ms. Sudesh Kasana Advocate.

Ms. Radhika Maharwal Advocate on behalf of Mr. Kunal Kant Rawat Advocate.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

Judgment / Order

[2023/RJJP/000558] (4 of 6) [SAW-1162/2022]

25/01/2023

These appeals are detagged from DB. Civil Special Appeal

(Writ) Nos.1158/2022, 1159/2022, 1163/2022 & 1167/2022 and

be listed separately.

Heard on prayer for condonation of delay in filing of the

appeals.

Upon due consideration and the cause shown, we are

inclined to condone the delay in filing of the appeals. Delay is

accordingly condoned.

Applications filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act are

allowed.

Heard on prayer for stay as also prayer for issuance of

appropriate direction for provisional appearance in the PET

examination.

Learned State counsel would submit that the learned Single

Judge has committed illegality in allowing the writ petition without

taking into consideration the decision of the Division Bench of this

Court in the case of Laxmi Devi Versus State of Rajasthan and

Others and other connected petitions, D.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.18808/2015, decided on 15.05.2017 as also the

decision of the Single Bench of this court at principal seat,

Jodhpur in the case of Raju Devi Versus The State of

Rajasthan & Others and other connected petitions, S.B.

Civil Writ Petition No.13486/2018, decided on 28.09.2018

by which the right of pregnant woman to appear in the

examination has been circumscribed by certain conditions. He

would submit that for certain categories of candidates including

pregnant women, one more chance of appearing in PET

[2023/RJJP/000558] (5 of 6) [SAW-1162/2022]

examination was offered by fixing the date of examination on

01.05.2022. Those, who have not availed the second chance, they

are not entitled to any relief.

Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the

appellants herein did not file any reply before the learned Single

Judge to oppose the relief sought on any factual premise. It is

submitted that in view of the Division Bench Judgment of this

Court in the case of Laxmi Devi Versus State of Rajasthan and

Others (Supra), the respondents are entitled to the relief, which

have been granted to them. It is also submitted that if the

respondents, at this stage, are not allowed to participate in the

process of selection, they would suffer irreparable injury.

We find that the issue with regard to the rights of pregnant

women to participate in the process of selection was considered in

detail by Division Bench Judgment in the Case of Laxmi Devi

Versus State of Rajasthan and Others (Supra).

In a subsequent Single Bench Judgment in the case of Raju

Devi Versus The State of Rajasthan & Others (Supra), the

learned Single Judge clearly held, taking into consideration the

submission of both the parties that the candidates are entitled to

grant of reasonable time post their delivery period for appearing in

PST/PET examination. The learned Single Judge held that 60 days

from the date of delivery would be the reasonable time.

Learned Single Judge considering the settled legal position

has allowed the writ petition.

The State preferred not to file any reply before the learned

Single Judge. If the case of the State was that all the writ

petitioners or some of them are not entitled to any benefit even if

[2023/RJJP/000558] (6 of 6) [SAW-1162/2022]

the reasonable time would have been granted, as provided under

various orders of this Court, it was for it to oppose the relief

sought by filing specific reply.

We have been informed that the process of selection is still

going on. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to stay the

operation of the order passed by the learned Single Judge because

if the respondents are not allowed to participate in the process of

selection, they may suffer irreparable injury.

On the other hand, if they are allowed to appear

provisionally, the interest of the parties can be protected so that in

the event appeals are allowed, the provisional participation may

be set at naught and in case the appeals are dismissed, on the

basis of provisional participation, subject to merit position,

respondents may be granted appropriate relief.

In view of the above, we are not inclined to stay the process

of selection. We, however, say that the order of the learned Single

Judge would be complied with. The participation of the

respondents in the process of selection would be subject to final

outcome of the appeals and would remain provisional.

Respondents shall not claim any equity on the ground of

provisional participation.

Interim application filed by the appellant and respondents

are accordingly disposed off.

List after three weeks for further orders.

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J

SANJAY KUMAWAT-1-10

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)