Dismissed

Smt.Tulsi v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC4 Mar 2018CW/7780/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur disposed of a writ petition seeking consideration for appointment as a Sweeper under women reservation. Relying on a similar recent judgment, the court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's case within thirty days adhering to reservation policy.

What did the court decide?

Directions to consider the petitioner's case within thirty days keeping reservation policy in mind.

Smt.Tulsi 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. 7780 / 2017

¶3

Smt. Tulsi W/o Shri Gattu, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Near Sub Jail, Harijan Basti, Sagwada, District Dungarpur (Raj.).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Rajasthan Through the Director and Deputy Secretary to the Government, Department of Local Self Government, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶7

The Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Sagwada, District Dungarpur (Raj.).

¶8

The Chairman, Municipal Board, Sagwada, District Dungarpur (Raj.).

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.R. Mehta

¶11

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Geeta Shrimali for Dr. P. Dave

¶12

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶13

Order

¶14

03/04/2018

¶15

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition claiming

¶16

the following reliefs :-

¶17

“a) That the writ petition preferred by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with all consequential benefits.

¶18

b) That the impugned order dated 09.07.2014 (Annex.9) may kindly be quashed and set aside up to the extent of rejection of candidature of the petitioner.

¶19

c) That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Safairkaramchari (Sweeper) against the statutory quota of 30% reservation for women candidates out of the total vacancies available with the respondent muncipal board Sagwada.

¶20

(2 of 3)

¶21

[CW-7780/2017]

¶22

d) it is further prayed that if during pendency of the writ petition any other person is appointed and allowed to join the duties, in place of the posts reserved for female candidate, then their appointments may be quashed and the petitioner may be allowed to join the duties.

¶23

e) That the petitioner may be held entitled and eligible to consider for appointment against 30% quota of reservation for women candidate with arrears of salary, continuity of service and all other consequential benefits.”

¶24

Learned counsel for the parties agree that the similar controversy has been decided by this Court in Smt. Nisha Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7806/2017) on 20.03.2018, which reads as under:

¶25

“1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the following reliefs :-

¶26

“a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 09.7.2014 (Annex.9) may kindly be quashed and set aside upto the extent of rejection of candidature of the petitioner.

¶27

b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to consider candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Safai Karamchari (Sweeper) against the statutory quota of 30% reservation for women candidates out of the total vacancies available with the respondent Municipal Board, Sagwada.

¶28

c) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, it is further prayed that if during pendency of the writ petition any other person is appointed and allowed to join the duties in place of the posts reserved for female candidate, then their appointments may be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may be allowed to join the duties.

¶29

d) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon`ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

¶30

e) Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs.”

¶31

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage submits that the petitioner shall be satisfied if her case is

¶32

(3 of 3)

¶33

[CW-7780/2017]

¶34

considered by the respondents for appointment as Safai Karamchari (Sweeper), arising out of advertisement No.1/2012.

¶35

3. Counsel for the respondent assures this Court that the representation of petitioner shall be decided keeping in mind reservation policy as well as other terms of the advertisement.

¶36

4. In light of such submissions, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider case of the petitioner within a period of thirty days from today keeping in mind reservation policy and other issues raised by the petitioner in her representation.”

¶37

In light of the aforementioned precedent law, the present writ petition is disposed in the same terms.

¶38

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J.

¶39

/zeeshan/

Smt.Tulsi v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Tulsi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parasmal and Ors. Vs Aman Singh and Ors.

Rana Ram Vs Aman Singh and Ors.

Manju Goyal Vs Union of India and Ors.

Abhishek Mehta and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Smt. Pratibha Sharma Vs Bhanwar Lal Sharma and Ors.

Daya Ram Maharshi Vs Vinod Kaushik and Ors.