Allowed

Beena Kumari Prajapat v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC24 Apr 2015CW/2889/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court allowed the petitioner's plea for consideration in the O.B.C. Divorced Woman category for the post of Teacher Grade-III. The Court held that the previous divorce order and the existing precedent in Reetu Kalasua necessitate relaxing the requirement of producing a divorce decree on the application date, directing the respondent to process her appointment immediate

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be considered for appointment as Teacher Grade-III under O.B.C. Divorced Woman category; objection letters set aside.

Beena Kumari Prajapat Vs State and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

( 1 )

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶4

ORDER

¶5

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2889/2015

¶6

Beena Kumari Prajapat Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors.

¶7

Date of Order : : 24.04.2015

¶8

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR

¶9

Mr. Khet Singh Rajpurohit, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Vikash Choudhary on behalf of Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, A.A.G., for the respondents.

¶10

<><><><>

¶11

NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL) :-

¶12

The prayer in the present petition is to consider the petitioner for the post of Teacher Grade-III Level-I by consider her under the O.B.C. Divorced Woman category.

¶13

The facts in short are that during the pendency of the divorce petition, advertisements were issued by the various Zila Parishads for filling up the post of Teacher Grade-III. The petitioner being eligible submitted her online application form and duly filled her category as O.B.C. Divorced Woman for Level-I. During the process of recruitment, the decree of divorce was passed by the Family Court, Tonk on 19.02.2014. The petitioner cleared the written examination and obtained 131.69 marks, whereas, the cut off marks for O.B.C. Woman (Divorce) category is 69.85. Her candidature has been

¶14

( 2 )

¶15

rejected on the ground that she did not have the decree of divorce on the date of the application.

¶16

The said issue stands settled by this Court in the case of Reetu Kalasua Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. reported in 2014 (3) CDR 1768 (Raj.) wherein it is held in Para No. 16 & 17 as under :-

¶17

“16. The date in question for submission of the Online application form could be relaxed by the respondentEducation Department, while considering her case for appointment who is ultimately appointing authority and the recommendation of the respondent- RPSC in this regard rejecting her case vide the impugned communication dated 24.04.2013 (Anne.A/1), does not assign any other reason then said the cut off date in question but the same deserves to be quashed by this Court for the aforesaid reasons.

¶18

The petitioner's case, in the considered opinion of this Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, definitely deserves to be considered in the reserved category for divorced woman belonging to ST/TSP area. More so, the judgment delivered by the coordinate benches of this Court in the case of Ms. Jamna Rajpurohit (supra), applies on all fours to the present petitioner. The said judgment of the learned Single Judge has become final with the dismissal of intra-court appeal preferred by the State being DBSAW No.82/2013- State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Ms. Jamna Rajpurohit [Along-with connected three SAW(s)] decided on 30.08.2013, quoted above. No further document of any challenge laid before the Apex Court has been placed before this Court.”

¶19

It is not disputed that the dispute herein is squarely covered by the ratio of the judgment rendered in the case of Reetu Kalasua (supra).

¶20

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The objection of the respondents noted in the Letter dated

¶21

( 3 )

¶22

16.03.2015 is set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III, Level-I against the aforesaid reserved category of O.B.C. Woman (Divorced). The said exercise be completed immediately, if she is otherwise found in merit.

¶23

(NIRMALJIT KAUR), J.

¶24

Beena Kumari Prajapat v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Beena Kumari Prajapat v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dindaar Khan Vs State

Dhan Raj Vs State

Babu Lal Vs State

Asha Kumari Vs State and Ors.

Parvej Akhter Vs State and Ors.

Manohar Vs State and Anr.