Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Reena Khokharia vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:583) on 6 January, 2025

Author: Dinesh Mehta

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

[2025:RJ-JD:583]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21716/2024

Reena Khokharia D/o Kesu Lal Khokharia, Aged About 25 Years, Village Undari Kalan, Girwa, District Udaipur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur, Through Its Secretary, State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Tonk Road, Shriji Nagar, Prithviraj Colony, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

4. Director, Elementary Education And Panchayati Raj (Elementary Education) Rajasthan, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

5. District Education Officer (Elementary), Head Quarter, Elementary Education, Sirohi, District Sirohi, Rajasthan.

6. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sirohi, Rajasthan.

7. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Pindwara, District Sirohi, Rajasthan.

                                                                      ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)              :     Mr. Harshit Yadav
For Respondent(s)              :             -



                           JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                      Judgment

06/01/2025

1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged

the order dated 25.11.2024 passed by the respondent No.4-

Director, Elementary Education and Panchayati Raj (Elementary

Education), Bikaner, whereby her representation made in

furtherance of the order dated 21.10.2024 passed by co-ordinate

[2025:RJ-JD:583] (2 of 6) [CW-21716/2024]

Bench of this Court in her earlier writ petition (being S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.16167/2024) has been rejected.

2. The facts in a nut-shell are that the petitioner's name was

recommended by the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board (hereinafter

referred to as the 'Board') for appointment on the post in question

vide its communication dated 18.06.2024 in TSP (ST) category for

district Sirohi.

3. Thereafter, an appointment order dated 05.07.2024 came to

be issued in her favour, in furtherance whereof, she had joined the

services. Hardly had the petitioner joined the services, her

appointment came to be canceled by the respondent No.4 vide

order dated 18.09.2024, while making reference of an order

passed by this court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15497/2023.

4. The petitioner alongwith other similarly situated candidates

preferred separate writ petitions before this Court, which came to

be allowed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by common order

dated 21.10.2024, essentially, on the ground of violation of

principles of natural justice. While allowing the writ petitions, this

Court had directed the respondents to provide an opportunity of

hearing to the petitioner.

5. The petitioner made a representation before the Director,

Elementary Education, who vide order impugned dated

25.11.2024 rejected the same.

6. While rejecting the petitioner's representation, the

respondent No.4 noticed all relevant facts, including the

adjudication made by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.15497/2023 (Lila Kumari Meena vs. State of Rajasthan &

Ors.), decided on 07.11.2023.

[2025:RJ-JD:583] (3 of 6) [CW-21716/2024]

7. Learned counsel argued that the petitioner was duly selected

on merit and was offered appointment without there being any

mis-representation or fault/fraud on her part. He argued that the

petitioner could not be ousted in a bid to accommodate other

candidates whose writ petition came to be allowed by this Court

on 07.11.2023.

8. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner

relied upon co-ordinate Bench judgment dated 03.09.2024,

rendered in the case of Gauri Shanker Jinger vs. State of

Rajasthan and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11875/2023) and

submitted that the appointment bonafidely given to the petitioner

is required to be saved.

9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

record.

10. An appreciation of the factual backdrop reveals that Lila

Kumari Meena and other similarly situated persons preferred writ

petitions and said bunch of petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.15497/2023 and challenged non-consideration of their cases as

per the norms fixed for the ST category candidates.

11. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court has been pleased to allow

said bunch of writ petitions holding that the petitioners therein

being TSP - ST - Divorcee' candidates cannot be deprived of their

rights to be declared successful as per the requisite cut-off marks

(36%) set for the TSP - ST Category candidates.

12. While allowing the writ petitions, the co-ordinate Bench of

this Court has held that the petitioners therein having secured

more than 36%, were entitled to be declared successful. Operative

[2025:RJ-JD:583] (4 of 6) [CW-21716/2024]

portion of the judgment dated 07.11.2023 rendered in the case of

Lila Kumari Meena (supra) reads thus:-

"7. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that the criteria has been fixed for the different categories and once the petitioners are falling under the widow / divorcee category then they will be governed by serial no. 4 and cannot be said to be governed by serial no. 2 of the aforesaid table of advertisement dated 16.12.2022.

8. This Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties and looking to the narrow dimension of the controversy finds that the petitioners are widow / divorcee, who are seeking recruitment for Teacher Grade-III Level I & II (General and Special Education) in TSP area and while they have qualified their REET examination, they are being disqualified on count of the fact that they have less than 50% marks as per the serial no.4 of the aforesaid table of advertisement dated 16.12.2022. It is not in dispute that the petitioners belong to ST-TSP category and thus, the original benefit of their primary category which is at serial no.2 of the aforesaid table of advertisement dated 16.12.2022 cannot be denied to them.

9. This Court is of the clear opinion that the petitioners, who belong to the ST - TSP category, as per the advertisement, were having the benefit of relaxation as per the column 2 of the advertisement and thus, in case any other category is applicable to them, which is serial no.4 in this case, then the category which provides optimum benefit lawfully has to be applied. The admitted position of ST - TSP category of the petitioners is directed to be applied so as to ensure their entitlement for the requisite criteria prescribed under the advertisement dated 16.12.2022 in column no.2.

10. In view of above observation, the present petitions are allowed and the respondent are directed to treat the petitioners, who are

[2025:RJ-JD:583] (5 of 6) [CW-21716/2024]

divorcee / widow, in terms of stipulation made at serial no.II of the aforesaid table of advertisement dated 16.12.2022 for the category of ST - TSP, while treating them to be qualified, if they possess above the minimum required marks i.e. 36% marks for the recruitment in question. It shall be open for the respondents to examine all other eligibility criteria but at the same time, the petitioners shall be treated to be qualified for REET- 2022, if they possess at least 36% marks. After fulfilling such criteria, rest of the conditions shall be examined by the respondents and appropriate appointment strictly in accordance with law as per their own merit shall be granted within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order with all consequential benefits."

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner was not in a position to

assert as to whether the judgment dated 07.11.2023 rendered in

the case of Lila Kumari Meena (supra) has been reversed or

modified.

14. The respondents have given effect to the adjudication made

by this Court in the case of Lila Kumari Meena (supra) and as a

consequence thereof, the petitioner and other candidates have

been shunted out. It cannot be said that they have been ousted

in a bid to accommodate those petitioners, whose writ petitions

were allowed by this Court on 07.11.2023.

15. So far as judgment in the case of Gauri Shankar Jinger

(supra) is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the