Manju Yogi W/O Sohan Lal Yogi vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5409 Raj/2

[2023:RJ-JP:33274-DB]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

               D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 734/2023
                                           In
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9986/2023
Manju Yogi W/o Sohan Lal Yogi, Aged About 28 Years, Resident
Of Village Patan, Bassi, Jaipur.
                                                                       ----Appellant
                                       Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, through Deputy Director, Women And
         Child Development Department, Jaipur (Raj.)
2.       Office Of Child Development Project Officer, Bassi. Jaipur.
3.       Basanti Meena W/o Late Sh. Hazari Lal Meena, Resident
         Of Village Patan, Bassi, Jaipur.
                                                                    ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kailash Chander Sharma Advocate.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Judgment

29/09/2023

1. Heard on admission.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the

learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition without properly

appreciating that respondent No.3 failed to produce her mark-

sheet/certificate of secondary education, to prove her date of birth

as 01.04.1984 and there was discrepancy in the date of birth

recorded in the mark sheet of Class-VIII and Class XII. Therefore,

in the meeting of the Gram Sabha held on 26.01.2023, name of

respondent No.3 was not recommended for appointment and the

appellant, next in merit was recommended. He would submit that

unless a candidate is qualified and complies with all the terms and

[2023:RJ-JP:33274-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-734/2023]

conditions including requirement of submitting proper certificate to

prove her date of birth, merely because the candidate was higher

in merit, could not be offered appointment.

3. The order of the learned Single Judge shows that

respondent No.3 possessed the required qualification, i.e., senior

secondary and her mark-sheet of senior secondary has been

treated as sufficient proof to verify her date of birth as

01.04.1984. It is not the case of the appellant that the mark-sheet

of respondent No.3 was forged one or not genuine document. The

learned Single Judge also took note of the finding recorded by the

Appellate Authority that when the eligibility for the post in

question is senior secondary, respondent No.3 having submitted

her mark-sheet of senior secondary then mere non-production of

secondary mark-sheet, could not be made a basis to reject the

candidature. Undisputedly, respondent No.3 was more meritorious

and, therefore, stood at the top of the select list, whereas, the

appellant is at third position in the select list.

4. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the

same is, therefore, dismissed at the motion stage itself without

issuing notice to the other party.

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J

SANJAY KUMAWAT-7

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)