Disposed

Smt. Pooja v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC3 May 2018CW/6222/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur disposed of a writ petition regarding eligibility for the post of Safai Karamchari. Relying on the Division Bench judgment in State of Rajasthan vs. Smt. Indira Devi, the court directed respondents to consider the petitioner's application while disregarding the disqualification based on childbirth after 01.06.2002 contrary to statutory rules.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to consider the petitioner's application for appointment as Safai Karamchari while not considering the third child born after 01.06.2002 as a disqualification.

Smt. Pooja Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6222/2018

¶3

Smt. Pooja W/o. Shri Vijay Lal, Aged About 30 Years, Resident of Near Power House, Indra Colony, Rawatbhatta District Chittorgarh.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of Local Bodies, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

The Director, Department of Local Bodies, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

The Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Rawatbhatta District Chittorgarh.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shailesh Aggarwal

¶11

For Respondents : Dr. Pratistha Dave

¶12

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶13

Order

¶14

03.05.2018

¶15

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the following reliefs :

¶16

“a. by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the ineligibility criteria incorporated in the advertisement dated 13.04.2018 (Annex.1) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

¶17

b. The respondents may kindly be directed to accept the application form of the petitioner pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.04.2018.

¶18

c. The respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner in selection process for appointment on the post of Safai Karamchari.

¶19

(2 of 4)

¶20

[CW-6222/2018]

¶21

d. The respondents may kindly be directed to provide

¶22

appointment to the petitioner on the post of Safai Karamchari, if otherwise found place in the merit.

¶23

e. Any other order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court

¶24

deemed just and proper be passed in favour of the petitioner.

¶25

f. Costs of this petition may kindly be allowed to the petitioner.”

¶26

Counsel for the parties agree that the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has already decided the controversy involved

¶27

in this matter in State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Smt. Indira Devi (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.703/2016, decided on 25.10.2016), wherein Hon’ble Division Bench has held that the candidate cannot be denied his/her right of appointment on the ground of having more than two children after 01.06.2002. The judgment reads as under:

¶28

“The present appeal assails order dated 05.11.2015 allowing S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2703/2015. The learned Single Judge held that the stipulation in the advertisement that those who had a third child born after 01.06.2002 would be considered ineligible for appointment was beyond the conditions of eligibility prescribed in Rule 6 of Rajasthan Municipalities (Safai Employees Service) Rules, 2012 (hereinafter called, 'the Rules').

¶29

Learned counsel for the Appellants submits that the writ petition came to be disposed without a counter affidavit. The Respondent had not challenged the conditions in the advertisement with regard to the ineligibility. There was no dispute on facts from her own affidavit that her third child was born after 01.06.2002. If the Respondent had inadvertently been called for consideration contrary to the stipulation in the advertisement, no benefit can flow to her because the stipulation for

¶30

(3 of 4)

¶31

[CW-6222/2018]

¶32

ineligibility was inconsonance with the National Policy for Controlling Population Growth. Reliance was placed on 2003 (8) SCC 369 (Javed Vs. State of Haryana).

¶33

Conversely, counsel for the Respondent submitted that she was selected on 17.12.2013 and letter of appointment issued. Joining was denied because complaints had been received. It was alleged that her mother-in-law had already been selected as a Safai Employee. The complaint was examined and found to be incorrect. She represented afresh after an order in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7196 of 2014. Thereafter the Appellants have taken a fresh ground with regard to her ineligibility restricting the operation of Rule 6 without any amendment of the Rules.

¶34

We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties.

¶35

The advertisement was never placed before the learned Single Judge by the parties. Despite more than one adjournment no counter affidavit was filed by the Appellants. A copy of the advertisement has however been placed before us in appeal.

¶36

Rule 6 prescribes the eligibility, qualifications fulfillment of which entitles a candidate to be considered. There is no statutory incorporation in Rule 6 with regard to any ineligibility of a candidate if a third child had been born after 01.06.2002. If the eligibility is prescribed in statutory Rules, those who do not fulfill the same are ineligible. If a candidate fulfills the eligibility requirements in Rule 6, she cannot be declared ineligible by incorporation of any clause in the advertisement beyond the statutory requirement of Rule 6. There is no error in the finding of the learned Single Judge that such a condition could not be incorporated in the advertisement beyond statutory provisions. It is not the case of the Appellants that even any executive order had been issued to that effect before the ineligibility clause was incorporated in the advertisement. It is not open for the Appellants to urge that any condition incorporated in the advertisement contrary to the statutory requirement, would still bind the applicant unless there was a challenge to the advertisement. The fact that the candidate may have applied

¶37

(4 of 4)

¶38

[CW-6222/2018]

¶39

notwithstanding the stipulations in the advertisement cannot confer legality on the condition prescribed beyond the Rules.

¶40

We therefore find no infirmity in the order of learned Single Judge. The Respondent is now required to be considered for appointment in accordance with the offer dated 17.12.2013.

¶41

Reliance on Javed (supra) is misconceived as the challenge related to the vires of the provisions of Sections 175(1)(q) and 177(1) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 incorporating a statutory requirement with regard to those having more than two children and which is not the case presently.

¶42

The appeal is dismissed.”

¶43

In light of aforementioned submission and position of law, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider application of petitioner for appointment on the post of Safai Karamchari in pursuance of advertisement dated 13.04.2018 while not considering third child born after 01.06.2002 as a disqualification, in accordance with the directions as well as in consonance with the precedent law laid down by Division Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Smt. Indira Devi (supra).

¶44

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J.

¶45

Sanjay

Smt. Pooja v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Pooja v. State of Rajasthan 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

Dr. Manish Soni Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Sunil Kumar Vs State and Ors.

Jyoti Soni and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Kishan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Islaudeen Vs Shanti Lal Singhvi and Ors.

Dilip Makwana Vs Raj. Rajya Vidyut Prasan Nigam Ltd. andORS