Vijay Singh Ad vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8027 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:33324] (1 of 3) [CW-15379/2023]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15379/2023

Vijay Singh Ad S/o Harji Ad, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of Village Galwani, Post Ramgarh, Tehsil Kushalgarh, District Banswara.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Principal Secretary, Education Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

4. President, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shreyash Ramdev For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinit Sandhaya Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

06/10/2023

1. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the issue raised

in the present petition is similar to Manju Bala & Ors. v. State of

Rajasthan & Ors. : SBCWP No.10593/2023 & other connected

matters, decided on 02.09.2023 and, therefore, the present writ

petition may also be decided in light of and with the similar

directions as given in the case of Manju Bala (supra).

2. In the case of Manju Bala (supra), this Court, inter alia,

observed and laid down as under:-

"9. The facts are not in dispute, wherein the petitioners are identically placed to those petitioners, who had

[2023:RJ-JD:33324] (2 of 3) [CW-15379/2023]

approached this Court by filing batch of writ petitions led by Komal Purohit (supra). The determination made in the case of Komal Purohit (supra), after referring to the Division Bench judgment in the case of Deepak Bariya (supra), inter- alia, reads as under :-

"A perusal of the above Division Bench judgment would reveal that the Court noticed the issue about ineligibility of the candidates, who opt for a subject as a compulsory subject in graduation course and the requirement is of the subject as an optional subject, came to a categorical conclusion that the candidate having opted for English as a compulsory subject in the graduation course, the object of the Rules is satisfied. Once the Division Bench based on its interpretation of the identical Rule/requirement, came to the conclusion that a candidate having opted for English as a compulsory subject in the graduation course satisfied the object of the Rules, the determination made by the respondents holding the petitioners as ineligible cannot be sustained.

So far as the judgment in the case of Saroj (supra) is concerned, though the same apparently was not cited before the Division Bench, in view of the Division Bench judgment in the case of Deepak Bariya (supra), the judgment in the case of Saroj (supra) has lost its efficacy and, therefore, the determination made by the committee relying on the judgment in the case of Saroj (supra) in ignorance of the Division Bench judgment in the case of Deepak Bariya (supra), cannot be sustained.

Consequently, the action of the respondents in insisting for English as optional subject at the graduation level and holding the candidates like the petitioners, who have studied English as compulsory subject at the graduation level, cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside."

10. The determination made is categoric and specific, wherein it was laid down that the action of the respondents in insisting for the subject in question as optional subject at the graduation level and holding the candidates like the petitioners, who have studied subject concerned as compulsory subject at the graduation level, cannot be sustained.

11. Admittedly, the order in the case of Komal Purohit (supra) came to be affirmed by the Division Bench and the candidates, who had approached this Court in the case of Komal Purohit (supra) and other similarly placed candidates were held eligible and were accorded appointments by the respondents.

12. The State for the purpose of guidance of the documents scrutiny team of the candidates has issued instructions / guidelines (Annex.14), which, inter-alia, on the subject matter provides as under :-

83 vik= v/;kid] ysoy&n~ orh; gsrq Lukrd esa lacfU/kr ,sfPNd fo"k; ds lkFk mŸkhZ.kZ ugha gS] bl dkj.k vik=A

13. The above guidance is ex-facie contrary to the law laid down by this Court and the same, therefore, cannot be sustained.

14. In view of the above fact situation, wherein the respondents contrary to the law laid down by this Court, have issued instructions (Annex.14) and pursuant to the said instructions, candidates like the petitioners have been held ineligible / are likely to be held ineligible during document verification, the action cannot be sustained.

[2023:RJ-JD:33324] (3 of 3) [CW-15379/2023]

15. Consequently, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed. The instructions (Annex.14) to the extent of Sr. No.83 (quoted herein-before), is quashed and set-aside. The cases wherein the candidates have been held to be ineligible during course of document verification, those determination are also quashed and set-aside and in cases, where the document verification is yet to take place, the respondents are restrained from holding the candidates ineligible based on the above guideline at Sr. No.83.

16. The Board is directed to treat the candidates like the petitioners, who have opted for the subject as a compulsory subject in graduation as eligible and in case, they fall in merit, include them in the list of selected candidates."

3. In view of the submissions made, the writ petition filed by

the petitioner is allowed in light of and with the similar directions

as given in the case of Manju Bala (supra).

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 153-SanjayS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)