Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mamta Rani vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. ... on 4 March, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:13160]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                   S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6304/2018

Mamta Rani W/o Dileep Kumar, Resident Of Goluwala Sihagan,
Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh Rajasthan
                                                                        ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.       The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To The
         Government, Department Of Panchayati Raj, Secretariat,
         Jaipur.
2.       Zila   Parishad,       Sri    Ganganagar,           Through       Its   Chief
         Executive Officer.
3.       District Education Office, Through                        District Education
         Officer, Sri Ganganagar.
                                                                     ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Divik Mathur
                                  Ms. Sana Quayyum
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav - Dy. G.C.



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Order (Oral)

04/03/2025

1. Petitioner herein seeks issuance of an appropriate writ, order

and/or direction commanding the respondents to consider her

candidature for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.-III under

the OBC Women category.

2. Briefly speaking, the facts pleaded in the petition are that

the State Government, through an advertisement dated

11.08.2013, invited online applications for direct recruitment to

the post of Teacher Gr.-III. The petitioner, being eligible, applied

for the post under the OBC Women category on 03.09.2013. The

petitioner participated in the selection process, securing 171.46

[2025:RJ-JD:13160] (2 of 5) [CW-6304/2018]

marks, and was subsequently called for document verification by

the respondent authorities.

2.1. Subsequently, the respondents issued the final merit list on

08.09.2017, in which one Suman Kumari, who had lower merit

than the petitioner, was offered an appointment, while the

petitioner's name was not included in the list.

2.2. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a representation, but it

was of no avail. Upon inquiry, the petitioner was orally informed

that her OBC certificate was one and a half years old, and

therefore, her candidature was not considered under the OBC

Women category and was instead placed in the general merit list.

Hence, the petitioner filed this petition.

3. The respondents, in their reply, have stated that Condition

No. 8(c) clearly outlines the criteria, which the petitioner does not

meet, and as a result, she was not selected. They further stated

that the terms and conditions of the advertisement were well-

established, and the petitioner, fully aware of them, participated in

the process. Therefore, at this stage, she cannot take a different

stance.

4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for

the parties and perused the case file.

5. It is rather strange that despite Clause 8(c) specifying clearly

that an OBC certificate once issued can be relied upon for a period

of three years, the petitioner was not given any opportunity to

either file an affidavit and / or give a fresh certificate. The

petitioner despite having filed an affidavit in terms of the

advertisement was not given the benefit of her OBC status. The

[2025:RJ-JD:13160] (3 of 5) [CW-6304/2018]

translated version of Clause 8(c) of the advertisement reads as

under:-

"The certificate related Non Creamy Layer will be valid for one year. Once the certificate of Non Creamy Layer is issued, if the applicant is still not in the Creamy Layer in the following year in that situation an affidavit can be taken from the applicant, and the previously issued certificate can be accepted for a maximum period of 3 years. In other words, the OBC certificate issued regarding Non Creamy Layer can be considered for up to 3 years (maximum) from the date of issuance."

6. In similar circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court

had an opportunity to deal with the controversy as herein and

speaking for Division Bench Govind Mathur, J (as His Lordship

then was in this Court) observed / held as under:-

"True it is, the appellant petitioner submitted OBC certificate dated 23.02.2012 alongwith the application submitted in pursuance to the advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates to face the process of selection for recruitment to the post of Teacher Gr.III but subsequent thereto he submitted a fresh certificate certifying that he is a member of Other Backward Class (non-creamy layer). The respondents did not consider the subsequent certificate as that was not furnished alongwith the application form. It is pertinent to note that no opportunity to satisfy the deficiency as given by Zila Parishad, Udaipur was given by the Zila Parishad, Sri Ganganagar conducting the process of selection to the post of Teacher Gr.III as per provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. It is not open for different Zila Parishads being governed by the same set of Rules to adopt different criteria for making selections of the posts prescribed in the Rules. We fail to understand that when Zila Parishad, Udaipur provided an opportunity to all the aspirants to satisfy the deficiency existing, then why such opportunity was not allowed by the Zila Parishad, Sri Ganganagar. We are of the considered opinion that the deficiency in the instant matter could have been satisfied by the petitioner if an opportunity would have been given. The deficiency existing is nothing but a minor mistake that deserves condonation if rectified at subsequent stage.

In the instant matter, the deficiency was rectified by submitting a fresh certificate and, therefore, in our considered opinion rejection of the petitioner's application form is illegal.

The appeal, thus, deserves acceptance. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The judgment dated 26.8.2015 is set aside. The writ petition preferred by the petitioner is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the appellant petitioner for the purpose of appointment to the post of Teacher Gr.III as a consequent to the process of selection initiated under the advertisement for recruitment to the post of Teacher Gr.III. No order as to costs."

[2025:RJ-JD:13160] (4 of 5) [CW-6304/2018]

7. Apropos, it transpires as it happened in the aforesaid case

while opportunity was given to the candidates belonging to

Udaipur but the one in Sri Ganganagar was denied the same

opportunity. It is rather unfathomable as to how the Udaipur

remains, even as on today, favourite district of the authorities to

accord such preferential treatment, while on the other hand, the

candidate in the present case, who belongs to Hanumangarh has

been treated akin to the one in Sri Ganganagar in the aforesaid

Division Bench judgment.

8. Be that as it may, I see not reason why the benefit of the

judgment ibid be accorded to the petitioner as the shoe is clearly

on the other foot and for their fault the petitioner cannot be

fastened with any responsibility.

9. Vide an interim order dated 09.05.2018 a co-ordinate Bench

of this Court had directed that the entire selection shall remain

subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. At this belated

stage instead of taking the drastic view of setting aside the entire

selection, suffice it is to meet the ends of justice that the

respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner

subject of course to the available vacancy as on today and in case

it is not available, as and when the same arises in future, subject

of course to the otherwise petitioner being eligible and meritorious

in the selection process, in which she had competed and her OBC

certificate also being found valid.

10. On a Court query, learned counsel for the petitioner candidly

submits that he is under the instructions to state that the

petitioner shall not claim either any financial benefits or notional

or seniority with effect from the date when her counterparts were

[2025:RJ-JD:13160] (5 of 5) [CW-6304/2018]

selected and she shall be considered as a fresh appointee from the

date she is issued appointment letter in case a favourable view is

taken after carrying out the due exercise in terms of the direction

issued by this Court.