Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Deeksha vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:40794) on 7 October, 2024
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:40794]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11484/2024
Deeksha D/o Mehra Ram Choudhary, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
C/o Suresh Kumar, Village And Post Lolawa, Tehsil Gudhamalani,
District Barmer (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
(Panchayati Raj), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. Additional Commissioner, Rural Development And
Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Barmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pawan Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Patel, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
07/10/2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by a
judgment rendered by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.11554/2018 (Govind Singh Chundawat V/s State of
Rajasthan & Ors.) along with another connected matter decided
on 02.02.2022 in the following terms :-
"It is relevant to mention here that during the process of
recruitment, there being a doubt about the certificate of the
petitioner, a clarification was sought by the Chief Executive
Officer of Zila Parishad, Udaipur from the Regional Directorate
of Apprenticeship Training, Faridabad. In response to the same
[2024:RJ-JD:40794] (2 of 3) [CW-11484/2024]
it was specifically replied by the said officer that the certificate
has been issued under the aegis of NCVT (National Council of
Vocational Training) which is a body recognized by Government
of India. Perusal of the said response leaves no doubt that
NCVT is an institute recognized by the Government of India and
the petitioner has been issued certificate by the NCVT.
Therefore, the ground of respondents that the petitioner had
obtained the certificate from an unrecognized institute falls flat.
So far as the ground of the respondents that the said
certificate is not in conformity with the conditions prescribed in
the advertisement is concerned, it is relevant to note that the
advertisement specifically provides for a diploma in computer
science/computer applications issued by any institute or
university recognized under the law. It further provides for a
certificate in Computer Operator and Programming Assistant
conducted under the vocational training scheme of National or
State level body. The certificate of the petitioner has been
issued by NCVT which would definitely fall within the
parameters of "a body conducting the vocational training
program". Once it is clear on record that NCVT is an institute
recognized by the Government of India it can safely be
concluded that the certificate issued by the said instituteis also
valid for all purposes. Moresoever, as submitted on record, the
petitioner had obtained qualification of RSCIT too later on.
In view of the above facts, it is clear on record that the
certificate obtained by the petitioner and submitted along with
her application form is within the parameters as laid down in
the advertisement and the petitioner cannot be denied
appointment by non-consideration of the same. Moresoever,
when during the document verification process, the department
itself had verified the same and after verification found the
petitioner to be eligible and declare her selected it cannot be
permitted take a shifting stand later on.
In view of the above observations, the present writ
petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to offer
appointment to the petitioner with immediate effect. The
petitioner would not been titled for any monetary benefits but
she would be entitled to all the notional benefits w.e.f. the date
the person less meritorious to her had been selected."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in these circumstances,
prays that the petitioner may be permitted to file an appropriate
representation before the respondent authorities for consideration
of her case in the light of the judgment rendered by this Court in
the case of Govind Singh Chundawat(supra). He further prays
that the respondents may be directed to consider and decide the
representation at the earliest.
[2024:RJ-JD:40794] (3 of 3) [CW-11484/2024]
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in case
such representation is filed by the petitioner, the same shall be
considered and decided in accordance with law.
5. Considering the submissions made before this Court, the
present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to
approach the respondent authorities by way of filing an
appropriate representation along with a copy of the judgment
rendered by this Court in the case of Govind Singh
Chundawat(supra) for redressal of her grievances along with
the other rules applicable in the present case.
6. In the event of filing such representation by the petitioner,
the respondent authorities are directed to consider and decide the
same at the earliest, keeping in mind the judgment rendered by
this Court in the case of Govind Singh Chundawat(supra),
preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of
such representation, strictly in accordance with law.
7. Stay petition as well as other pending misc. applications, if
any, stands disposed of.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
10-SunilS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
