Narendra Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8180 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:33608] (1 of 3) [CW-15835/2023]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15835/2023

Narendra Kumar S/o Sh. Baijnath, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Near Rcp Colony, Ward No. 15, Taranagar, Churu (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Department Of Local Bodies, Jaipur.

2. Municipal Council, Through Its Executive Officer, Taranagar, District Churu.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Pragya Lakhani For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG assisted by Mr. Piyush Bhandari

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

07/10/2023

1. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the present

controversy is covered by the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble

Court at Jaipur Bench in Vinod Kumar Vs. The State of

Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15405/2019,

decided on 11.11.2020); the said judgment reads as under:

"Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and his wife were selected and placed in the select list at 14 and 47 respectively for the post of Safai Karamchari.

The petitioner was not offered appointment on the ground that his wife has been considered and appointed on the post and a candidature of the petitioner was rejected accordingly. Learned counsel relies on the judgment passed by this court in the case of Jagdeep Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Passed in SB CWP

[2023:RJ-JD:33608] (2 of 3) [CW-15835/2023]

No.13676/2014 decided on 12.4.2017 wherein this court has observed as under:

It is submitted that the issue is no more res integra and has been decided by Co-ordinate Benches as well as by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6183/2014 Mala Devi & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on 28.01.2015 as well as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6565/2014 Harphul Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. decided on 30.03.2016. This Court also in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11019/2012 decided on 25.01.2017 has taken the similar view that the Rajasthan Municipalities (Class IV Service) Rules, 1964 do not put any embargo on appointment of candidate whose family is in service. The Rajasthan Municipalities (Safai Employees Service) Rules, 2012 which have been amended also did not lay down any such embargo for barring appointment of two members of the same family. Therefore, a circular which goes beyond the provisions of Rules and contrary to the same, cannot be allowed to stand and the respondents could not have relied upon circular dt. 23.01.2013 and 03.05.2013 to terminate the service of the petitioner to frustrate the interim order passed in the writ petition preferred by his wife Jyoti Rani as noted above. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dt. 14.11.2014 is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post which he was holding prior to passing of order dt. 14.11.2014 with all consequential benefits. The petitioner would also be entitled to receive back wages for the intervening period as he has been forcefully denied to perform his duties. The Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Mandal, Bandikui, Dausa, who passed the order shall pay cost of Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner which shall be recovered from his salary.

Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted reply and states that in view of the guidelines only one candidate from one family can be selected.

I have considered the submissions and judgment passed by this court in the case of Jagdeep Prasad (supra). The aforesaid judgment was again followed by this court in the case of Vijendra Kumar Versus State of Rajasthan & Anr. (SB CWP No.13643/2014) and the persons who were given appointment and their services were terminated on this ground, were quashed and set aside.

[2023:RJ-JD:33608] (3 of 3) [CW-15835/2023]

Keeping in view the aforesaid principles which have been followed in the aforesaid judgment, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The rejection of the petitioners' candidature for the post of Safai Karamchari on account his wife being placed in the same select list is held to be illegal and contrary to Rule 6 of the Rules of 2012 and the petitioner is directed to be considered for appointment and appointment shall be given if she is otherwise found to be suitable. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed."

2. In light of the aforequoted judgment, the present petition is

allowed in the same terms.

3. The order has been passed based on the submissions made in

the petition, the respondents would be free to examine the

veracity of the submissions made in the petition and only in case,

the averments made therein are found to be correct, the petitioner

would be entitled to the relief.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 256-AnilSingh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)