Jagdamba Devi vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8580 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:35288]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15940/2023

1. Jagdamba Devi D/o Nanak Chand W/o Late Sh. Manish Kumar Sharma, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Ward No. 18, Ramji Lal Wali Gali, Pilibangan, Hanumangarh (Raj.)

2. Suman D/o Kashmir Singh, W/o Late Sh. Deepak Malik, Aged About 36 Years, R/o, Vpo Igrah Near Sadhu Ashram, Tehsil And District Jind (Haryana)

3. Neetu Rani, Aged About 36 Years, R/o, Ward No.5, Mochi Mohalla, Taranagar,district Churu (Raj.)

4. Manju Bala D/o Akheram W/o Late Sh. Vikram Pal, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village Sheopura, Post Laseri Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu (Raj.)

5. Pardeep Kumar S/o Mange Ram, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Vpo Gorchhi, Tehsil And District Hisar (Haryana.)

6. Rajni Bansal D/o Late Sh. Raj Kumar Mittal W/o Kamal Kumar Bansal, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Flat No. 403 4Th Floor, The Grand Residency Sirsi Jaipur (Raj.)

7. Pooja Sharma D/o Jaiprakash Sharma W/o Suneel Kumar, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Ward No. 8. Kalwasia, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)

8. Sanjeev Kumar Verma S/o Krishan Lal Verma, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Ward No. 17, Behind Warehouse, Aadarsh Colony, Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)

9. Asha Yadav D/o Rai Singh W/o Neeraj Yadav, Aged About 37 Years, R/o C-270 Budh Vihar, Alwar, (Raj.)

10. Gurpreet Kaur D/o Surat Singh, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Ward No.19 Kumhara Wali Gali, Shiv Nagar, Mandi Dabwali, Sirsa (Haryana)

11. Manju Bala D/o Mahendra Singh,w/o Virendra Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Vpo Umedpura, Tehsil And District Sirsa (Hariyana)

12. Chiter Rekha D/o Sheonarayan, W/o Pradeep, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Vpo Dhingsara, Tehsil And District Fathabad (Haryana)

13. Shashi Bala D/o Krishan Kumar W/o Yogesh Kumar, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Ward No. 18, Regar Basti, Taranagar, District Churu(Raj.)

14. Maya D/o Ram Singh, W/o Narender Kumar, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Vpo Kagdana, Tehsil Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa (Haryana)

15. Saraswati D/o Surender Singh, W/o Somveer, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Vpo Dhabi Khurd, Tehsil Bhattu Kalan, District Fathabad (Haryana)

16. Usha Devi D/o Ram Kanwar, W/o Mahendra Kumar, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Vpo Beelaheri, Tehsil Kotkasim, District Alwar (Raj.)

17. Jitendra Sen S/o Ratan Lal Sen, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Village Raliyawata, Post Office Rajlota, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur (Raj.)

18. Aman Sharma S/o Sanjay Sharma, Aged About 24 Years, R/ o Vpo Ismaila 9-B Near State Bank Of India, Rohtak (Haryana)

[2023:RJ-JD:35288] (2 of 5) [CW-15940/2023]

19. Nisha D/o Rajesh Kumar, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Vpo Kakroli Sardara, Tehsil Badhra, District Charki Dadri (Haryana)

20. Harvinder S/o Harikesh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Vpo Niyana, Bank Wali Gali, Hisar (Haryana)

21. Suresh Kumar, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Malapur P.o.

Jakhod Khera Hisar. (Haryana)

22. Manju D/o Mahendra Singh, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Vpo Sandlana, Tehsil Barwala, Hisar. (Haryana)

23. Amit Kumar S/o Rajkumar, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Vpo Ujhana Tehsil Narwana, District Jind (Haryana)

24. Ravi Rathi S/o Omparkash, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Purkhas, Tehsil Ganaur, District Sonipat (Haryana)

25. Ajay Kumar Mother/o Jitender Kumar, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Raparpati, Vpo Ujhana, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind (Haryana)

----Petitioners Versus

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

2. Principal Secretary Education Department (Elementary)Government Of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. The Director, Elementary Education Rajasthan Bikaner (Raj.)

4. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board Jaipur (Raj) Office, Address-

Agriculture Management Institution Campus Durgapura Jaipur (Raj) Through Its Chairman.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sushil Bishnoi. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinit Sanadhya.

Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order 16/10/2023

1. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the

issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by

order in Manju Bala & Ors. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil

Writ Petition No.10593/2023, decided on 02.09.2023.

2. In the case of Manju Bala (supra), this Court came to the

following conclusion:-

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

[2023:RJ-JD:35288] (3 of 5) [CW-15940/2023]

who had 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.

[2023:RJ-JD:35288] (4 of 5) [CW-15940/2023]

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.

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

[2023:RJ-JD:35288] (5 of 5) [CW-15940/2023]

case, they fall in merit, include them in the list of selected candidates."

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent - State as well

as Board are not in a position to dispute that the issue as raised is

squarely covered by order in the case of Manju Bala (supra).

4. In view of the above, the petition filed by the petitioners is

allowed in light of and with similar directions as given in the case

of Manju Bala (supra).

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 127-Sumit/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)