The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's appointment on the post of Teacher. The court held that the petitioner did not meet the merit criteria as her application precedes her educational qualification.
No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
O R D E R
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3360/2006
Smt. Meena Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Date of Order: 21.03.2014
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA
Mr. Sudhindra Kumawat, for the petitioner. Mr. Parikshit Singh, Dy. Govt. Counsel, for the respondents. <>><><>
The petitioner, in instant writ application, after having submitted her application for consideration of her candidature in response to advertisement dated 30.04.2005, for appointment to the post of Women Teachers against the category of Widow/Divorced Women, has approached this Court praying for the following prayer(s):-
“a) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction thereby declaring the action of the respondents in not sending petitioners form for appointment on the post of Teacher's Grade-III to be illegal.
b) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the respondents to equally treat the petitioner as they treating to SC/ST woman candidate and giving liberty to produce divorce decree on later stage as per Annexure-7.
c) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the respondents to treat the petitioner as Divorced Woman candidate and she may given appointment on the post of Teacher's Grade-III.
d) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may consider just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.
2
e) Cost of the writ petition may be quantified in favour of the petitioner.”
3
4
petitioner in the degree of STC, acquired in the year 2008, wherein the petitioner secured 73.81% marks. Since the petitioner submitted her application, for consideration of her candidature, in response to advertisement dated 30.04.2005, the inclusion of the marks of degree of STC, acquired in the year 2008, is thoroughly a factual error; since the marks of STC degree, cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculation of percentage of marks as per criteria in the advertisement dated 30.04.2005.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J.
A.Sharma/47
All corrections made in judgment/order have incorporated in the judgment/order being e-mailed. Anil Sharma Jr.P.A.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to appointment on the post of Teacher's Grade-III despite the respondents rejecting her claim based on merit criteria.
Whether the petitioner correctly calculated her merit percentage by including marks from a degree obtained after the application date.
Smt. Meena Kumari
State of Rajasthan
Veerendr Singh Siradhana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
