Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sher Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 23 October, 2024
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:43434]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17490/2024
Sher Singh S/o Noratan Res, Aged About 34 Years, Ward No 17
Taranagar, Churu (Raj.) - 331501.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Department
Of Local Bodies, Jaipur.
2. Municipal Council, Through Its Executive Officer,
Taranagar, District- Churu.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.K. Pandey
Mr. Ramniwas Haniya
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Meenal Singhvi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
23/10/2024
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
No.13676/2014 decided on 12.4.2017 wherein this
court has observed as under:
[2024:RJ-JD:43434] (2 of 3) [CW-17490/2024]
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.
Keeping in view the aforesaid principles which have
been followed in the aforesaid judgment, the writ
[2024:RJ-JD:43434] (3 of 3) [CW-17490/2024]
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
75-Payal/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
