Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Seema Rathore vs The State Of Rajasthan And Anr ... on 13 September, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2023:RJ-JD:29288]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15609/2017
Smt. Seema Rathore W/o Late Shri Sohanlal Ji, R/o 85 Thakkar
Bapa Colony, Suraj Pole, District Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary,
Department Of Local Self Government, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Commissioner, Municipal Council, Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chandraveer Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anurag Shukla
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
13/09/2023
1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has
challenged the order dated 19.01.2016, whereby the respondent -
Municipal Council, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Council') has proposed to terminate petitioner from the post of
Safai Karmchari on the ground that she had made a wrong
declaration in her affidavit in relation to number of children born
to her on or after 01.06.2002.
2. Learned counsel submitted that the action of the
respondents in terminating petitioner's services on the ground of
having more than two children on or after 01.06.2002, is illegal,
inasmuch as, the very condition of ineligibility contained in Rule
9A of the Rules of 2012 has been declared ultra-vires and violative
of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, by the Division
[2023:RJ-JD:29288] (2 of 4) [CW-15609/2017]
Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 02.04.2019, rendered in
the case of Anita & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : D.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.16572/2018 and judgment dated 05.11.2015,
passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2703/2015 :
Smt. Indira Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan.
3. It was also argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that
a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated
08.07.2020, passed in the case of Madan Lal Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8108/2019, while
quashing the order(s) under challenge has held that since the
ineligibility, on account of having more than two children, itself
has been declared ultra-vires, the requirement of furnishing
affidavit in this regard is rendered otiose.
4. Mr. Anurag Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent - Council submitted that the petitioner's services have
been terminated on the ground of furnishing wrong information,
as the same was in clear contradiction of the condition No.6 of the
appointment order dated 25.09.2013 and terms of the
advertisement.
5. In the case of Madan Lal (supra), this Court has held thus:-
"13. After hearing learned counsel for the parties
as well as perusing the record of the case
alongwith the precedent law cited, this Court is of
the view that once Rule 9A of the Rules of 2012
itself has been struck down, then any action of the
respondents, in now denying the petitioners their
employment, cannot be sustained.
14. This Court is of the firm opinion that the
jurisprudence of Avtar Singh (supra) can be taken
[2023:RJ-JD:29288] (3 of 4) [CW-15609/2017]
into consideration as the discretion to cancel the
appointments ought to go in favour of the
employees, who are on the last pedestal of the
government job, and suppression, in the present
case, is immaterial, as even if the facts would have
been disclosed, the same would not have adversely
affected the fitness of an incumbent for
employment.
15. This Court has taken note of the fact that for
the post in question, the respondents themselves
have laid down their policy, relevant portion of
which has already been reproduced herein above,
that the standard of scrutiny ought to be lenient,
as the post in question belongs to a very backward
and lowly educated contenders.
16. This Court finds that the judgment rendered in
Pavani Devi & other connected petitions (supra)
covers the present issue.
17. In view of the above, the present writ petitions
are allowed, and while quashing and set aside the
impugned order(s) dated 29.03.2019, the
respondents are directed to reinstate the
petitioners in service as Safai employee with all
consequential benefits. All pending applications
stand disposed of."
6. Mr. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent - Council
submitted that an intra-Court appeal has been preferred before
the Division Bench of this Court being D.B. Special Appeal Writ
No.371/2020 : Jodhpur Municipal Corporation Vs. Madan Lal,
against the above referred judgment in the case of Madan Lal
(supra), in which an interim order staying the effect and operation
of the order dated 08.07.2020 has been passed and the same is
pending.
[2023:RJ-JD:29288] (4 of 4) [CW-15609/2017]
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this juncture submitted
that though an interim order was passed, but the same has been
vacated by the Division Bench of this Court, however the appeal is
pending consideration.
8. In view of the aforesaid fact situation and considering that
Coordinate Benches of this Court have set aside similar impugned
orders, whereby services of similarly situated Safai Karmchari
were terminated, the present writ petition is also allowed.
9. The order dated 19.01.2016 is hereby quashed and set
aside. The petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential
benefits.
10. It shall be required of the respondent - Council to re-appoint
the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today with
continuity in service. The period between 19.01.2016 and date of
reappointment order shall be notionally considered and the
petitioner shall not be entitled for salary etc. for such period.
11. Stay petition also stands disposed of.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
42-Ramesh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
