Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Niru vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:39601) on 23 September, 2024
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:39601]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9205/2020
Smt. Niru W/o Dheeraj Dabgar, Aged About 33 Years, Behind
Amba Mata Mandir, District Banswara (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Local Self Government, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Commissioner, Municipal Council, District Banswara,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lokesh Mathur
For Respondent(s) : --
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
23/09/2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the
controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by
two judgments rendered by this Court in a batch of writ petitions
led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8108/2019 (Madan Lal vs.
State of Rajasthan & Anr.) decided on 08.07.2020, wherein,
the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held as under:
"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 into
[2024:RJ-JD:39601] (2 of 4) [CW-9205/2020]
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 hereinabove, 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."
The other question raised in this writ petition is decided by
the judgment rendered by this Court in another batch of writ
petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13292/2020
(Payal vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) decided on 02.08.2024
in the following terms:
"20. In the considered opinion of this Court, if the provision
of law does not provide for producing a certificate by a
candidate under the signatures of a particular authority,
then the condition mentioned in the
advertisement/Notification for producing the experience
certificate under the signatures of a particular authority is
clearly de hors the Rule. The provisions mentioned in the
Rule will prevail over the condition enumerated in the
advertisement. Therefore, the certificates of experience
produced by the petitioners under the signatures of the
Sanitary Inspector are meeting the provisions of the Rules
[2024:RJ-JD:39601] (3 of 4) [CW-9205/2020]
and therefore, they are held to be valid. There is nothing on
record to show that the certificates produced by the
petitioners are forged or fabricated, therefore, for all intents
and purposes, it is considered that the petitioners are
holding the requisite eligibility criteria of experience for
appointment on the post of Safai Karamchari.
21. This Court is also of the view that the appointment in
the present case is for the post of Safai Karamchari and the
candidates who had applied for the same belong to the
lowest rung of the society and they are not literate enough
to understand the niceties or effect of the signatures on the
experience certificate. Since the petitioners performed their
work as Safai Karamchari under the command of a Sanitary
Inspector, therefore, they approached the authority
concerned and got the certificates issued of the work
performed by them unmindful of the fact that the same does
not make the criteria laid down in the advertisement. They
cannot be penalized for the same. The petitioners are poor,
bonafide aspirants who have served the respondents for last
six years in the respondent-Department though under the
interim orders passed by this Court and therefore, at this
juncture, even the equity is in their favour and therefore,
ends of justice will be met if they are allowed to continue on
the post of Safai Karamchari shorn of the hypertechnical
stand taken by the respondents for terminating their
services.
22. In view of the discussion made above, the writ
petitions merit acceptance and the same are allowed. The
termination order dated 03.12.2020 is quashed and set
aside.
23. Stay petition as well as other pending application(s), if
any, shall stand disposed of."
3. In view of the submissions made by counsel for the parties,
the present writ petition merit acceptance and the same is
allowed. The termination order dated 24.07.2018 is quashed and
set-aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the
petitioner in service.
[2024:RJ-JD:39601] (4 of 4) [CW-9205/2020]
4. The petitioner will be further entitled to all the notional and
service benefits right from the date of her appointment for the pay
and pensionary purposes and seniority will also be assigned to her
from the date of their appointments.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
135-/Arun P/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
