Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sharmila Kumari Kumawat vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 23 January, 2023
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2023/RJJD/002493]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8888/2020
Chetna Tripathi W/o Shri Bhuvnesh Upadhyay And D/o Shri Nand
Kishore Bhatt, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Post Madar,
Tehsil Badgaon, District Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director, Primary Education,
Government Of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1946/2020
Sheetal Ameta W/o Hitesh Ameta, Aged About 26 Years, R/o 655
Kurabad, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan,
Through Secretary Department
Education Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Panchayati Raj
Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Director, Directorate Of Primary
Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4. The Coordinator, Directorate
Elementary Education, Bikaner,
Rajasthan.
5. Secretary, Department Of
Personnel, Secretariat, Jaipur.
6. Zila Parishad, Through The
Chief Executive Officer, Zila
Parishad Udaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7939/2020
Gayatri Paliwal W/o Sh. Chandra Prakash Paliwal, Aged About 40
Years, R/o Plot No. 2, Gayatri Nagar, Hiran Magri Sec. 5, District
[2023/RJJD/002493] (2 of 19) [CW-8888/2020]
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan,
Through Secretary Department
Education Department,
Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Panchayati Raj
Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Director, Directorate Of Primary
Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4. The Coordinator, Directorate
Elementary Education Bikaner,
Rajasthan.
5. Zila Parishad, Through The
Chief Executive Officer, Zila
Parishad Udaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9304/2020
Neetu Sharma W/o Sh. Lokesh Joshi, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Village - 370, Bhadavat Phala, Tehsil - Salumbar, District -
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan,
Through Secretary Department
Education Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Panchayati Raj
Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Directorate Of
Primary Education, Bikaner,
Rajasthan.
4. The Coordinator, Directorate
Elementary Education Bikaner,
[2023/RJJD/002493] (3 of 19) [CW-8888/2020]
Rajasthan.
5. The Zila Parishad, Through The
Chief Executive Officer, Zila
Parishad, Udaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9305/2020
Pooja Jain W/o Sandeep Kothari, Aged About 31 Years, Village
Nai, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan,
Through Secretary Department
Education Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Panchayati Raj
Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Directorate Of
Primary Education, Bikaner,
Rajasthan.
4. The Coordinator, Directorate
Elementary Education Bikaner,
Rajasthan.
5. The Zila Parishad, Through The
Chief Executive Officer, Zila
Parishad, Udaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9650/2020
Ranjita Paliwal W/o Nitin Paliwal, Aged About 41 Years, C-128 O,
Tilak Nagar, Pratapgarh District Pratapgarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through
The Secretary Department Of
Education Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Secretary, Panchayati Raj
Department, Government Of
[2023/RJJD/002493] (4 of 19) [CW-8888/2020]
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Director, Directorate Of Primary
Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4. The Coordinator, Directorate
Elementary Education Bikaner,
Rajasthan.
5. Secretary, Department Of
Personnel, Secretariat, Jaipur
6. Zila Parishad, Through The
Chief Executive Officer, Zila
Parishad Pratapgarh.
7. Chief District Education Officer,
Head Quarter, Pratapgarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10480/2020
Divya Sharma W/o Sourabh Joshi, Aged About 26 Years, Village
Brahmano Ka Kherwara, Tehsil Jhadol, District Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through
Secretary Department
Education Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Secretary, Panchayati Raj
Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Directorate Of
Primary Education, Bikaner,
Rajasthan.
4. The Coordinator, Directorate
Elementary Education Bikaner,
Rajasthan.
5. The Zila Parishad, Through The
Chief Executive Officer, Zila
Parishad, Udaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10486/2020
[2023/RJJD/002493] (5 of 19) [CW-8888/2020]
Sharmila Kumari Kumawat W/o Goverdhan Lal Kumawat, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Village And Post Gadariya Was Tehsil Chhoti
Sadri, District Pratapgarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through
Secretary Department
Education Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary Panchayat Raj
Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Director, Directorate Of Primary
Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4. The Coordinator, Directorate
Elementary Education Bikaner,
Rajasthan.
5. Zila Parishad Through The Chief
Executive Officer, Zila Parishad
Pratapgarh.
6. Chief District Education Officer
(Headquarter), Pratapgarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11199/2020
Krishna Menaria W/o Nirmal Menaria, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
548, Kheda Kanpur, Matoon, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through
Secretary Department
Education Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Panchayati Raj
Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Director, Directorate Of Primary
Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4. The Coordinator, Directorate
[2023/RJJD/002493] (6 of 19) [CW-8888/2020]
Elementary Education Bikaner,
Rajasthan.
5. Zila Parishad, Through The
Chief Executive Officer, Zila
Parishad Udaipur.
6. Chief District Education Officer
(Headquarter), Udaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13083/2020
Monika Tiwari D/o Gopal Lal Tiwari, W/o Ashish Sharma, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Village And Post Dhamottar, Tehsil And Dist.
Pratapgarh, Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan,
Through Secretary Department
Education Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Secretary, Panchayati Raj
Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Director, Directorate Of Primary
Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4. The Coordinator, Directorate
Elementary Education Bikaner,
Rajasthan.
5. Zila Parishad, Through The
Chief Executive Officer, Zila
Parishad Pratapgarh.
6. Chief District Education Officer
(Headquarter), Pratapgarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13286/2020
Anita Kunwar Chundawat D/o Nathu Singh Chundawat, W/o
Hemant Singh Chauhan, Aged About 33 Years, R/o C/o Hemant
Singh Chauhan 43 Airport Road Kapil Vihar Near Munt View
School (Rural) Debari, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
[2023/RJJD/002493] (7 of 19) [CW-8888/2020]
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan,
Through Secretary Department
Education, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The District Education Officer,
Udaipur.
3. The Secretary Panchayati Raj
Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Director, Directorate Of Primary
Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
5. The Coordinator, Directorate
Elementary Education Bikaner,
Rajasthan.
6. Zila Parishad, Through The
Chief Executive Officer, Zila
Parishad Udaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13347/2020
Minakashi Purohit D/o Narayana Lal W/o Vikram Kumar, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o Purohitvas, Village Amthala, District Sirohi,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan,
Through Secretary Department
Education Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Panchayati Raj
Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Director, Directorate Of Primary
Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4. The Coordinator, Directorate
Elementary Education Bikaner,
Rajasthan.
5. Secretary, Department Of
[2023/RJJD/002493] (8 of 19) [CW-8888/2020]
Personnel, Secretariat, Jaipur.
6. Zila Parishad, Through The
Chief Executive Officer, Zila
Parishad Sirohi.
7. Chief District Education Officer,
Head Quarter, Sirohi.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1413/2021
Savita Rathore D/o Shri Rajendra Singh Rathore W/o Shri
Hemendra Singh Shaktawat, Aged About 30 Years, R/o 127,
Palach, Post Karda, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through
Secretary Department
Education Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Panchayat Raj
Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Director, Directorate Of Primary
Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4. Zila Parishad, Through The
Chief Executive Office, Zila
Parishad, Udaipur.
5. Chief District Education Officer
(Headquarter), Udaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2464/2021
Kavita Vairagi D/o Prakash Chandra W/o Devendra Kumar
Bairagi, Aged About 21 Years, Behind Devendra Talkies,
Neemuch Road, Choti Sadari, District Pratapgarh, Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through
Secretary, Department Of
Education Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
[2023/RJJD/002493] (9 of 19) [CW-8888/2020]
2. The Secretary, Panchayati Raj
Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat Jaipur.
3. Director, Directorate Of Primary
Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4. The Coordinator, Directorate
Elementary Education Bikaner,
Rajasthan.
5. Zila Parishad, Through Chief
Executive Officer, Zila Parishad
Pratapgarh.
6. Chief District Education Officer
(Headquarter), Pratapgarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16141/2021
Leha Gaur W/o Vilaxan Singh D/o Gopal Singh, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Dak Bangla Road, Civil Line Colony, Pratapgarh,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through
Secretary Department
Education Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Panchayati Raj
Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Director, Directorate Of Primary
Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4. Zila Parishad, Through The
Chief Executive Officer, Zila
Parishad, Pratapgarh.
5. Chief District Education Officer,
(Headquarter), Pratapgarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4409/2022
Meena Rathore D/o Shri Bhagirath, Aged About 29 Years, W/o
Vikram Sahau, R/o Village And Post Swaroopganj, Tehsil Chhoti
[2023/RJJD/002493] (10 of 19) [CW-8888/2020]
Sadri, Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through
Secretary Department
Education Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary Panchayati Raj
Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Director, Directorate Of Primary
Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4. Zila Parishad, Through The
Chief Executive Officer, Zila
Parishad, Pratapgarh.
5. Chief District Education Officer
Primary Education Head
Quarter, Pratapgarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13083/2022
Raj. Pradesh Niji College Sangh Rajasthan, Having Its Regional
Office At 88, Radha Krishanpuram, Nayapura, Chokha Road,
Chopasani, Jodhpur Through Its Secretary Ram Chandra Singh
Son Of Shri Sukha Ram, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Flat No. 106,
Vardhman Apartment, Devi Marg, Banipark, Jaipur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through
Secretary, Department Of
Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director Of Elementary
Education, Directorate Of
Elementary Education, Bikaner.
3. National Council For Teacher
Education, Through Its Member
Secretary, G-7, Sector 10,
Dwarka, Near Metro Station,
New Delhi.
[2023/RJJD/002493] (11 of 19) [CW-8888/2020]
4. Western Regional Committee Of
National Council For Teacher
Education, Through Its
Regional Director, G-7, Sector
10, Dwarka, Near Metro
Station, New Delhi.
5. Coordinator, Pre. D.el.ed. Exam
And Registrar, Education
Department Examinations,
Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Arora a/w Mr. Naresh
Singh
Mr. VLS Rajpurohit
Mr. Papu Sangwa
Mr. Tanwar Singh
Mr. Avinash Acharya
Ms. Sweta Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG a/w Mr.
Deepak Chandak
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
23/01/2023
1. Since all the instant petitions involve a common controversy,
though with marginal variation in the contextual facts, therefore,
for the purposes of the present analogous adjudication, the facts
and the prayer clauses are being taken from the above-numbered
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9304/2020, while treating the same as a
lead case.
2. The prayer clauses read as under:
"(i) by an appropriate writ or direction the
respondents may be directed to allow the petitioner to
participate in the process of Teacher Grade-III, Level-
II subject English Recruitment, 2018 for the post of
Teacher Grade-III, Level II in pursuant to
[2023/RJJD/002493] (12 of 19) [CW-8888/2020]
advertisement no.02/2018 dated 31.07.2018
(Annexure-2) and if petitioner come into the merits
than appointment may be granted to the petitioner on
the post of Teacher Grade-III, Level-II subject
English.
(ii) By an appropriate writ order or direction, that the
respondents may kindly be directed to consider
Special TSP Certificate for the post of Teacher Grade
III, Level II subject English in pursuance of the
Advertisement No.02/2018 dated 31.07.2018
(Annexure-2)
(iii) Any other appropriate order which is deemed just
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case
may kindly be also passed in favour of the petitioner."
3. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned
counsel for the petitioner in the lead case, are that the
Directorate, Primary Education, State of Rajasthan issued two
notifications No.01/2018 & 02/2018, both dated 31.07.2018, in
relation to recruitment for the post of Teacher Grade III Level II
under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and the Rajasthan
Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996; notification No.01/2018 was
pertaining to Non-TSP Area, while notification No.02/2018 was
pertaining to TSP Area; vide both the said notifications, online
applications for the aforementioned post were invited from the
eligible candidates of the respective area; the last date, as
stipulated in the notifications, was 25.08.2018, for filling the
online application form; being an eligible candidate, the petitioner
applied for the said post.
4. At the time of filling up the application form, the petitioner
being the domicile resident of Non-TSP Area, applied for the post
in question in the category of Non-TSP Area, although in the year
[2023/RJJD/002493] (13 of 19) [CW-8888/2020]
2013 i.e. prior to issuance of the notification, she got married to
one Lokesh Joshi, who was resident of TSP Area, and thus, has
been residing with him thereat, since then. And that, on count of
her domicile status at the time of filling up the application form for
the post in question, the petitioner was also not issued the Special
Bonafide Certificate (TSP Certificate), and therefore, she was
having no option, but to apply for the post in the category of Non-
TSP Area.
5. However on 21.10.2019, the State Government issued a
notification, whereby it has been notified that after marriage of a
person, with a person of TSP Area, the said person shall be
treated as bonafide resident of TSP Area, with effect from
16.06.2013; whereupon the petitioner applied for the TSP
Certificate, and the same was issued to the petitioner by the
competent authority.
6. Upon obtaining the requisite TSP Certificate, the petitioner
approached the competent authority (respondents) to consider her
candidature for the post in question, while treating her to be a
candidate of TSP Area, on the strength of the TSP Certificate so
issued by the competent authority, but the necessary
consideration was not made by the respondents; aggrieved
whereby, the instant petition has been preferred before this
Hon'ble Court, claiming the aforementioned reliefs.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that despite the
issuance of the aforementioned State Government Notification
dated 21.10.2019, which was made applicable retrospectively, i.e.
w.e.f.16.06.2013, as also undisputed factum of issuance of the
TSP Certificate, and the fact that the petitioners are otherwise
[2023/RJJD/002493] (14 of 19) [CW-8888/2020]
eligible, suitable and meritorious, in all respects, for the post in
question, the respondents are not treating them as a candidate(s)
of TSP Area and also not calling them for documents verification
and other formalities, for the purposes of their appointment on the
post in question. Thus, as per learned counsel, such inaction on
the part of the respondents calls for interference by this Court,
and issuance of necessary directions in that regard.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submit that apart
from the aforementioned State Notification dated 21.10.2019, the
controversy herein regarding Special Domicile Status of Women
married to a person of permanent resident of TSP Area has also
been settled by this Court in the case of Smt. Twarita Gehlot
Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.15540/2017 decided on 14.12.2017).
8.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners thus submit that in the
aforementioned backdrop, the respondents are under a legal
obligation to consider the candidature of the petitioners for the
post in question, while treating them as TSP Area candidates, and
accord them the appointment on the post in question; apart
therefrom, learned counsel also submit that in certain cases, the
writ petitions preferred by the similarly situated candidates were
allowed by this Hon'ble Court, and furthermore, in some of the
cases, persons lesser meritorious than the petitioners have been
accorded appointment on the post in question, by the
respondents.
9. Lastly, while seeking indulgence of this Court in favour of the
petitioners, learned counsel for the petitioners, as regards the
above-numbered instant S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10480/2020
[2023/RJJD/002493] (15 of 19) [CW-8888/2020]
(Divya Sharma Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.2464/2021 (Kavita Vairagi Vs. The State of
Rajasthan & Ors.), submitted that in the case of petitioner-Divya
Sharma, her marriage with a person (r/o TSP Area) was
solemnized on 12.05.2019 i.e. after the issuance of the
notification for the post in question; while in relation to the case of
petitioner-Kavita Vairagi, as per learned counsel, there is no
disclosure on record pertaining to date of her marriage.
10. On the other hand, Mr. Pankaj Sharma, learned Additional
Advocate General assisted by Mr. Deepak Chandak, appearing on
behalf of the State-respondents, opposed the aforesaid
submissions made on behalf of the petitioners.
11. Learned Additional Advocate General at the outset, has taken
a preliminary objection to the effect that the present petitions
have been preferred after an inordinate delay of more than two
years, from the date of notification issued in the year 2018
pertaining to the post in question, and thus, on that count alone,
the present petitions deserve dismissal.
12. Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that the
delay in filing the present petitions is fatal, on count of the fact
that the petitioners did not remain vigilant to prefer the petitions
before completion of the recruitment process in question, and
thus, when the recruitment process for the post in question is
already over, the petitioners do not deserve the reliefs, as prayed
for in the present petitions, from this Court.
13. Learned Additional Advocate General also submits that the
petitioners are not entitled for the reliefs prayed for, also on the
ground that the recruitment process in question is already over
[2023/RJJD/002493] (16 of 19) [CW-8888/2020]
and the selected candidates, in their respective category (TSP)
have already been accorded appointments, and thus, in case the
petitioners succeeds, it will have an adverse impact upon the
career prospects of those duly selected candidates, which is
clearly impermissible in the eye of law.
13.1 Furthermore, as per learned Additional Advocate General, in
case the petitioners are granted relief in the present petitions,
other similarly situated persons, who have applied under the Non-
TSP Area category and could not succeed in the recruitment
process, shall also prefer writ petitions seeking similar relief, which
also, if granted, would further disturb the final select lists of the
candidates, who have already been granted appointments, in
pursuance of the recruitment process in question.
13.2 As regards applicability of the judgment rendered in Smt.
Twarita Gehlot (supra), learned Additional Advocate General
submits that the factual matrix of the present cases, clearly
disentitles the present petitioners, from seeking the relief, as
granted vide the said judgment.
14. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
record of the case, alongwith the judgment referred by learned
counsel for the petitioners.
15. At the outset, owing to the bearing of the judgment rendered
by this Court in the case of Smt. Twarita Gehlot (supra), the
relevant portion of the same is reproduced as hereunder:
"After hearing learned counsel for the parties and
perusing precedent laws, this Court is of the opinion that
time and again the precedent law has settled the issue that
after marriage a woman acquires the domicile of the place
of her husband and, therefore, she has to be treated for all
[2023/RJJD/002493] (17 of 19) [CW-8888/2020]
practical purposes a citizen of that particular region. The
petitioners who are married ladies and apparently from the
same caste as that of their husband have come to the TSP
area concern on account of their marriage and, therefore,
they have to be treated as a part of the family and they too
need to be extended all benefits that are available to the
residents of those TSP area. The factum of marriage as well
as the factum of petitioners having bonafide residence
certificate and special bonafide residence certificate is not
denied by the respondents. The said certificates are on
account of husband's place of residence, rather then, that of
parents. In an institution of marriage any certificate of a
woman, may that be, election voter ID card, passport,
ration card, aadhar card, bank details or any other
educational certificates or employment certificate etc.,
includes address of husband for all practical purposes. Law
itself permits such address as the permanent address for all
future legal and financial transactions, therefore, in view of
the above, this Court after looking into the complete
precedent laws as well as arguments made by learned
counsel for the parties finds that the petitioners deprivation
on account of technicality of circular dated 4.7.2016 is not
appropriate as the circular dated 4.7.2017 does not at all
deal with the conditions post-matrimony. The validity of
circular has not been gone into as the circular is not under
challenge. The condition of matrimony is not dealt with in
the circular dated 4.7.2016. Ours is one country and one
constitution. Citizenship as per the Constitution is one and,
therefore, matrimony cannot be a detrimental factor to a
lady only on account that she has changed area and has
shifted from her parental family to her matrimonial home.
The purpose of single citizenship of the country is same and
cannot be taken away by the respondents on mere
technicality. Precedent law is almost one sided as the
Hon'ble Court has time and again held that the matrimony
shall entitle the petitioner to all the benefits arising from
the region. Averments made by counsel for the respondents
cannot be accepted in the present situation as if the
technicality of the circular dated 4.7.2016 is allowed, then
[2023/RJJD/002493] (18 of 19) [CW-8888/2020]
that shall cause serious prejudice to a lady depriving her of
the benefit being extended to a particular region. The lady
has also shifted to such permanent home on account of
marriage and would be having the same handicap which all
other residents of the area shall be suffering. Such privilege
based on region cannot be discriminated on any count or
any legal proposition whatsoever.
In light of the aforesaid observations, the writ petition
is allowed. The respondents are directed to treat the
petitioners as the residents of TSP area and accord them
benefit of bonafide residence certificate and special
bonafide residence certificate, which they had attained on
account of her husband being a resident of the same TSP
area. The respondents shall consider candidature of the
petitioners for appointment as if she stands in merit relating
to TSP in her own category and if she is otherwise eligible
for appointment she shall be accorded the same within a
period of two months from today".
16. After giving a thoughtful consideration to the rival
contentions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this
Court finds that the present cases, except the instant S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.10480/2020 (Divya Sharma Vs. The State of
Rajasthan & Ors.) and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2464/2021
(Kavita Vairagi Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.), owing to the
limited controversy raised, are squarely covered by the judgment
rendered by this Court in the case of Smt. Twarita Gehlot
(supra), and thus, in the opinion of this Court the present
petitions, except S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10480/2020 (Divya
Sharma Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.2464/2021 (Kavita Vairagi Vs. The State of Rajasthan
& Ors.), deserve to be allowed.
17. In view of the above, S.B. Civil Writ Petitions
No.8888/2020, 1946/2020, 7939/2020, 9304/2020,
[2023/RJJD/002493] (19 of 19) [CW-8888/2020]
9305/2020, 9650/2020, 10486/2020, 11199/2020,
13083/2020, 13286/2020, 13347/2020, 1413/2021,
16141/2021, 4409/2022 and 13083/2022 are allowed.
Accordingly, the respondents are directed to treat the petitioners
in the said petitions as the residents of TSP area and accord them
benefit of the requisite TSP Certificate, which they had attained,
upon being a resident of the TSP area, subsequent to their
marriage. The respondents shall consider candidature of the
petitioners for appointment on the post in question, as if they are
residents of TSP Area (having the requisite TSP Certificate), and
thereafter, if they are otherwise found meritorious and eligible for
such appointment, they shall be accorded the same, within a
period of two months from today.
18. However, S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.10480/2020 &
2464/2021 are dismissed, as the same are not covered by the
judgment rendered in the case of Smt. Twarita Gehlot (supra),
since in the said first petition (No.10480/2020), the marriage of
the petitioner was solemnized on 12.05.2019 i.e. after the
concerned notification issued in the year 2018, while in the other
petition (No.2464/2021), the date of marriage of the petitioner is
not disclosed.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
72-88-SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
