Single Judge disposed of writ for consideration of petitioner's claim to widow category appointment after husband's death during recruitment. Directed State to consider/reply within timeframe citing relevant Division Bench ruling.
Petition disposed; directed State to consider petitioner's representation within time frame; State to pass reasoned order within four weeks.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writs No. 13268/2018
Sumitra Meghwal
----Petitioner
Versus
RPSC
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Sharma For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA
Order
02/07/2018
Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, submits that the controversy raised in the instant writ application is no more res-integra in view of the adjudication made by a Division Bench of this Court in a batch of intra-court appeals lead case being D.B. Civil Special Appeal Number 82/2013: State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Ms. Jamna Rajpurohit, decided on 30th August, 2013; observing thus:
“We have given anxious consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the appellants and having perused the material placed on record.
We may, at once, observe that the contention as urged on behalf of the appellants, against a part of the observations occurring in the impugned order dated 29.08.2012, cannot be considered to be wholly without substance where the learned Single Judge has proceeded to draw an analogy to the event of SC/ST/OBC category 7 DBSAW No.82/2013 With 3 connected appeals candidates being switched over to general category on the basis of their merit. True it is that, ordinarily, if a reserved category candidate gets selected on the basis of merit, he cannot be treated as
[CW-13268/2018]
(2 of 5)
a reserved category candidate and is not deprived of the right to be considered as a general category candidate. However, this event is not that of change of category as such. Without much dilatation on this aspect, suffice would be to observe for the present purpose that the questioned observations occurring in the order impugned could be left out of consideration and need not be approved. However, we are clearly of the view that other observations and findings in the orders impugned cannot be said to be unjustified; and we are satisfied that the ultimate relief, as granted to the respondents (writpetitioners), remain justified from every point of view and does not call for any interference. The appellants have repeatedly harped on the stipulations of the nature as contained in clause 19 (1) of the advertisement dated 27.02.2012 which reads as under:-
Þ¼1½ vkosnuk i= izLrwr djus dh vfZUre fnukad 2-04-2012 jkf= cts rd vkuykbZu vkosnu i= Lohdkj fd;s tk;saxsaA rRi’pkr mä osclkbZV ij miyC/k vkuykbZu flLVe Lor% gh cUn gks tk;sxkA vkuykbZu vkosnu dh leLr izfof"V;ka iw.kZ ,oa lgh ugha gksus ij vkosnu i= vLohd`r dj fn;k tkosxkA vkuykbZu vkosnu i= esa nh xbZ tkudkjh ds fy, ftEesnkjh vkosnu dh gksxhA vkosnu i= esa dh xbZ izfof"V;ksa esa vfUre fnukad ds ckn fdlh Hkh izdkj ds ifjorZu dh vuqefr ugha nh tk;sxh vkSj uk gh bl ckcr izLrqr fdlh izkFkZuk i= ij fopkj fd;k tk;sxkAÞ
Such a stipulation appears to be logical to some extent and the appellants appear to be right in their assertion that in an ordinary case, the particulars stated in the application cannot be permitted to 8 DBSAW No.82/2013 With 3 connected appeals be altered, lest it becomes an unending process. However, the appellants, representing a welfare State, appear totally perfunctory in their approach when suggesting that even the categorization of a married woman to a widow upon happening of an unfortunate event, i.e., demise of her husband after filing of the application, could also be considered hit by the stipulation aforesaid. The stipulation as occurring in clause 19(1), obviously, operates in the case where the candidate has filled up the application form stating his/her category and after the last date, seeks change of the category or any other particular stated in the application. The said stipulation directly relates to an attempt by the candidate to seek alteration of the particulars in the application form on his/her own volition. The prayer for such nature alteration can, of course, be denied under the said stipulation but then,
[CW-13268/2018]
(3 of 5)
the same cannot be considered operating in the case of present nature where the woman candidate is neither seeking alteration of any particulars stated in the application nor seeking change of category of her own accord or on account of any of her mistake. The prayer herein had been for consideration of the case of the individual writ-petitioner in widow category because of an unfortunate event, and because of a peculiar reason, that she was rendered a widow after filling up the application form upon demise of her husband.
It remains a matter of hard reality and of fact that each of the writ-petitioners was a married woman with her husband very much alive at the time of her filling up the application form. They had submitted the form and filled in the category as applicable. It had been an unfortunate aspect that after filling up of the forms, they lost 9 DBSAW No.82/2013 With 3 connected appeals their respective husbands. The cases of the writ-petitioners could not have been considered as that of seeking any ‘permission’ to change the category. In fact, their category got changed for vis major over which, they had no control; rather they would have never wished it to happen.
Vis major i.e., act of God, refers to an occurrence taking place exclusively due to natural causes, and being of external nature, and further being the one which cannot be anticipated or provided against. Sudden demise of a person remains essentially a matter beyond the control and anticipation of human beings. Such an unfortunate event could nevertheless happen, as has happened in the present cases. The appellants cannot be considered justified in suggesting that such an unfortunate event can also be ignored by them with a perfunctory reference to the stipulation like the one referred above. It remains trite that the law does not envisage nor countenance an absurdity or impossibility. The propositions of the appellants, running against the very fundamentals of law, are required to be rejected.
We are further of the view that when the appellants have provided for a special reservation to a category of persons requiring help and support of the State i.e., the women suffering widowhood, any provision in that relation ought to be applied with a
[CW-13268/2018]
(4 of 5)
practical approach and with due respect to the ground realities. The very object behind reservation for widow category would be defeated, if not rendered illusory, if the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case of a woman suffering widowhood after filling up of the application form but before completion of recruitment process, are 10 DBSAW No.82/2013 With 3 connected appeals ignored and she is not considered for appointment in widow category. We are at one that the observations in the orders impugned that in these cases, the concerned authorities were rather under an obligation to consider the candidature of the writpetitioners in widow category.
In view of the above, these appeals stand dismissed summarily, subject, of course, to the observations foregoing.”
It is further contended that for the present; the petitioner would be satisfied, if the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner, within a time frame, in the light of the law declared by the Division Bench in the case of Ms. Jamna Rajpurohit (supra), which she is ready and willing to address within two weeks hereinafter.
In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant writ proceedings are closed with a direction to the petitioner to address a comprehensive representation ventilating the grievances raised in the writ application.
In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid period, the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. However, in no case later than four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order.
[CW-13268/2018]
(5 of 5)
With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ application stands disposed off.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J
SS/188
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can claim widow category for appointment consideration after husband's demise post-application filing.
Whether State is bound to consider representation regarding category change based on recent Division Bench precedent.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Ms. Jamna RajpurohitFollowed¶12
D.B. Civil Special Appeal Number 82/2013: State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Ms. Jamna Rajpurohit
Sumitra Meghwal
RPSC
Veerendr Singh Siradhana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Veerendr Singh Siradhana
Parties & counsel
