Dismissed

Madhu Chaudhary D/O Shri Rajendra Singh v. Mona Sharma D/O Shri Kunj Bihari Sharma

Rajasthan HC4 Dec 2018WRW/183/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A High Court bench dismissed a review petition filed with an 1145-day delay in a case concerning educational recruitment quotas for divorced and widow women. The Court held that the subsequent Government notification resolving the issue did not constitute an error apparent on the face of the original record.

What did the court decide?

The review petition and the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act were dismissed.

Madhu Chaudhary D/O Shri Rajendra Singh Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D. B. Civil Review Petition No. 183/2018

¶3

¶4

D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1498/2012

¶5

¶6

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14778/2012

¶7

Madhu Chaudhary D/o Shri Rajendra Singh aged about 33 years, resident of A-312, Jawahar Nagar, Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶8

----Review Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

Mona Sharma D/o Shri Kunj Bihari Sharma, by caste Brahmin, resident of 72, Raj Nagar, Mantown, District Sawaimadhopur (Raj.)

¶11

...Original Appellant/Respondent

¶12

The State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶13

The Director Elementary Education, Bikaner.

¶14

Additional Examination, Controller and Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sawaimadhopur.

¶15

The District Elementary Education Officer, Sawaimadhopur (Raj.)

¶16

----Respondents

¶17

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahmed. For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Gupta, AAG.

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR

¶19

Order

¶20

04/12/2018

¶21

There is delay of 1145 days in filing of the review

¶22

petition.

¶23

Application No. 577/2018 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by the review petitioner seeking condonation of delay in filing of the review petition.

¶24

We have heard learned counsel for the parties on the aforesaid application as also on the review petition.

¶25

(2 of 3) [REVIEW-183/2018]

¶26

This petition has been filed seeking review of order dated 13.02.2015 and judgment dated 02.11.2015 passed by Coordinate Division Bench in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1498/2012 filed by one Ms. Mona Sharma, who claimed that she was eligible for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III, Level-II (Hindi Subject). She participated in the process of selection pursuant to advertisement dated 25.02.2012. She was entitled to be considered against the vacancies which were meant for divorced/widow women category. According to the notification dated 24.01.2011 issued by the respondents and the circular dated 05.06.2013, if member of either category was not available against the total number of vacancies, the vacancy would revert to general category of women based on their vertical reservation but there was no provision of inter changeability of widow being 8% and divorced being 2%, which is why the appellant Ms. Mona Sharma was not getting appointment in the quota of divorced even though vacancies were available in the widow quota.

¶27

A perusal of the judgment of this Court dated 02.11.2015 reveals that this Court did not pass any specific orders but simply observe that since the amendment notification dated 24.01.2011 and circular dated 05.06.2013 need consideration at the end of the Government, therefore, the Government should examine the issue and take appropriate decision in this regard.

¶28

It is informed by Mr. S. K. Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General that the Government has now amended the rules and provided for exchange of the vacancies between divorced and the widow and that if the vacancies in the quota of

¶29

(3 of 3) [REVIEW-183/2018]

¶30

divorces remain unfilled they can be offered to widow and viceversa and would not revert to the open category.

¶31

Mr. Tanveer Ahmed, learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that this Court in the judgment sought to be reviewed failed to appreciate that reservation under women category is horizontal reservation and therefore inter changeability of reservation to widow and divorced category under the reservation quota of woman category would tantamount to reservation within the reservation, which is not permissible in law. It is argued that new notification dated 22.12.2015 cannot be applied to the advertisement issued prior thereto as there was no amendment in the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996.

¶32

Even if that be so, this cannot be considered as an error apparent on the face of the record. All that this Court has done in the judgment of which review is sought is that it left the matter to the state authorities to consider the question of inter changeability of vacancies between the divorced and the widow category. This does not make out a case for review. This Court cannot in the scope of review comment on the correctness of the notification issued subsequently.

¶33

There is no merit in this review petition as also in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and they are accordingly dismissed.

¶34

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J

¶35

(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J

¶36

Manoj/44

Madhu Chaudhary D/O Shri Rajendra Singh v. Mona Sharma D/O Shri Kunj Bihari Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhu Chaudhary D/O Shri Rajendra Singh v. Mona Sharma D/O Shri Kunj Bihari Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radheshyam S/O Shri Ram Swaroop Vs State of Rajasthan

Sokat Ali S/O Late Shri Karim Khan Vs Smt Sahina Khatoon S/O Sokal Ali D/O Shri Mohd. Usman

Naresh Kumar Meena S/O Ganpat Lal Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan

Mohan Lal S/O Shri Benaram, Vs Ramswaroop Dagar S/O Shri Laduram Dagar

Rajasthan Financial Corporation Vs Rajendra Singh Gehlot S/O Shri J.S. Gehlot

Chairman Vs Riddhi Siddhi Public Shikshan Sansthan