Dismissed

Anju Sihag v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC8 May 2018CW/7950/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Single Judge dismissed this petition challenging the non-appointment of an OBC widow candidate for School Lecturer. The Court held the public advertisement required a PG in Home Science, and as PG candidates were available, the petitioner's candidature could not be considered.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition claiming appointment and quashing of impugned order is dismissed.

Anju Sihag 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. 7950 / 2017

¶3

Anju Sihag D/o Shri Athu Ram Sihag, W/o Vinod Kumar Bana, Aged About 30 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident of Village Ramgarh, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan Through State of Rajasthan Through the Chairman, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (Raj.)

¶7

The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (Raj.)

¶8

The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner (Raj.)

¶9

Poonam Soni D/o Dhanpal Soni, Aged About 30 Years, Resident of Lavkush Nagar, Gadhi, Banswara (Raj.)

¶10

Bhupender Kumar D/o Balveer Singh, Aged About 29 Years, Resident of House No. 541, Sec No. 12, Hanumangarh Junction (Raj.)

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashvini Swami

¶13

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Khet Singh

¶14

Mr. JK Khichi

¶15

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶16

Order

¶17

08/05/2018

¶18

The petitioner by way of filing this writ petition is

¶19

claiming for the following reliefs :-

¶20

“(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned order dated 24.6.2017 (Annex.15) may be quashed and set aside.

¶21

(ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents

¶22

(2 of 3)

¶23

[CW-7950/2017]

¶24

may be directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of School Lecturer for the subject Home Science.

¶25

(iii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may be directed to keep one post vacant for the petitioner till final disposal of this writ petition.

¶26

(iv) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this

¶27

Hon`ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

¶28

The facts as noticed by this Court are that the petitioner is an OBC candidate, who applied in widow category for the post of Lecturer (School Education). The recruitment was initiated in pursuance of advertisement dated 16.10.2015. The petitioner, who applied in OBC Widow Category, secured 126.01 marks, whereas the cut-off for her category was 42.19, therefore, as per counsel for the petitioner the petitioner ought to have been given appointment.

¶29

Counsel for the respondent has shown Condition in the advertisement (Annex.5), which reads as follows :

¶30

“If required number of candidates are not available. In case Post Graduate in Home Science are not available, than Graduate with Degree or Diploma in Education with five years experience of teaching Home Science of the standard of Secondary or Higher Secondary Class shall be eligible for the post of Senior Teacher in Home Science (preferable B.Sc with Home Science). Graduates with home Science will also be eligible if they are Post Graduate in any other subject but with Degree or Diploma in Education.”

¶31

(3 of 3)

¶32

[CW-7950/2017]

¶33

Counsel for the respondent further stated that the petitioner was not having PG in Home Science and since candidate with PG in Home Science were available, thus, petitioner’s candidature was rightly not considered.

¶34

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing record, this Court finds that the condition of the advertisement is very specific that in case of non-availability of PG in Home Science, a candidate possessing qualification of PG in other subjects could be considered. Admittedly, the petitioner is not a PG in Home Science and private respondent no.5 being a Post Graduate in Home Science was rightly given appointment as the petitioner does not fulfil the requisite qualificational eligibility of having PG in Home Science, thus, no interference is called for. The writ petition is dismissed.

¶35

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J.

¶36

Sanjay

Anju Sihag v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anju Sihag 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lrs of Sawai Ji and Ors. Vs Mining Engineer,Mining and Geology and Ors.

Ram Vallabh Vs Bharat Singh and Ors.

Suraj Kanwar Chundawat Vs Raj.Public Service Commission and Anr.

Om Prakash Khatik Vs State and Ors.

Dilkush Meena and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Krishan Kumar Regar and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.