Allowed

Kuldeep Singh Saktawat v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC17 Oct 2022CW/2664/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed for quashing termination of petitioner's appointment as Constable. Court held the certificate issued on the basis of mother's residence was valid under the 2016 circular. Ordered quashing of termination and reinstatement, excluding back wages.

What did the court decide?

Termination order of 09.02.2018 quashed; petitioner reinstated as Constable with pay fixation and seniority, excluding back wages.

Kuldeep Singh Saktawat Vs State and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2664/2018

¶3

Kuldeep Singh Saktawat S/o Gattu Singh Saktawat, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Gajanand Marg Opposite Tegor Park, Pratapgarh

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Rajasthan, Ministry of Home Affairs, Through the Secretary, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶7

The Director General of Police, Police Headquarter, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.S. Deora Mr. K.P. Raj Singh Mr. S.P. Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Bissa, AGC

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR Order

¶12

17/10/2022

¶13

Brief facts of the case are that the respondents invited applications from the candidates belonging to Tribal Sub Plan (TSP) area for special recruitment against the post of ‘Constable’ vide advertisement dated 10.02.2016. The petitioner being eligible participated in the selection process. In the final result declared by the respondents after conducting written and physical examination, the petitioner was declared successful. An appointment order dated 17.07.2017 was issued by the Office of Superintendent of Police, District-Pratapgarh in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner joined duties at Police Line, Pratapgarh on 18.07.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner was sent for training at Police Training School, Basni Khurd, Bharatpur on 11.09.2017. While the petitioner was undergoing training, an order dated

¶14

(2 of 4)

¶15

[CW-2664/2018]

¶16

09.02.2018, terminating petitioner’s services was issued by the Superintendent of Police, District-Pratapgarh, stating inter alia that the petitioner does not fall within the definition of bona fide resident of TSP area, therefore, appointment cannot be extended to the petitioner on the post of Constable pursuant to the selection process initiated vide adverisement dated 10.02.2016 for the bona fide residents of TSP area.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner falls within the definition of bona fide resident of TSP area as provided under the circular dated 04.07.2016. The special bona fide resident certificate dated 12.11.2013 was issued in petitioner’s favour after due inquiry by the Tehsildar-cumExecutive Magistrate, Pratapgarh. It was further submitted that petitioner’s mother belongs to TSP area and had been residing in TSP area since birth. For above mentioned submission, the Court’s attention was drawn towards Jamabandi showing petitioner’s mother’s share in the parental property situated at village Ambakheda, Patwar Circle, Chamlavada, Tehsil and DistrictPratapgarh. Counsel thus prayed that the termination order dated 09.02.2018 deserves to be declared illegal and arbitrary.

¶18

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that while the petitioner was undergoing training after being selected on post of Constable pursuant to advertisement dated 10.02.2016, certain complaints were received by the department about the special bona fide TSP resident certificate possessed by the petitioner whereupon, an inquiry was conducted. The Patwari of the area concerned submitted a report pursuant to inquiry initiated stating that the petitioner’s family originally belongs to

¶19

(3 of 4)

¶20

[CW-2664/2018]

¶21

Nimbahera, District- Chittorgarh which does not fall within TSP area. However, petitioner’s father has been continuously residing since 1995 in Pratapgarh i.e. TSP area. Further, the mother of the petitioner originally belongs to Pratapgarh District i.e. TSP area. It was further submitted that certain corrections were noticed in the application form submitted by the petitioner. Lastly, it was submitted that the special bona fide resident certificate was issued to the petitioner as per notification dated 19.07.2013 and not in pursuance of notification dated 04.07.2016, issued by the State Government providing definition of resident of TSP area.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶23

The Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan issued notification dated 04.07.2016 giving it retrospective effect from 19.07.2013, wherein following definition of the bona fide resident of TSP has been enumerated:-

¶24

"स्पष्टीकरण:- अनुसूचि�त क्षेत्र के अभ्यचि��यों से ऐसे व्यक्ति�त अभि�प्रेत है जो अनुसूचि�त क्षेत्र के सद�ावी निनवासी है और जो स्वयं या यदिद उनका जन्म 1 जनवरी 1970 के बाद हुआ है तो उनके माता-पि�ता / �ूर्व�ज 1 जनर्वरी 1970 के �ूर्व� से अनुसूचि�त क्षेत्र के सदभार्वी निनर्वासी रहे हैं। ”

¶25

Emphasis supplied

¶26

The respondents in reply have not disputed that the petitioner’s mother is a bona fide resident of TSP area i.e. Pratapgarh. The notification dated 04.07.2016, which has been given retrospective force from 19.07.2013 in clear terms provide that those persons who were either themselves or their mother-

¶27

(4 of 4) [CW-2664/2018]

¶28

father was born or bona fide residents in such area on or before

¶29

01.01.1970 shall be considered bona fide residents of TSP area. Admittedly, petitioner’s mother is a bona fide resident of Pratapgarh and had been continuously residing in Pratapgarh. The objection raised with regard to birthplace of petitioner or him not being bona fide resident of TSP area in view of aforesaid definition of bona fide resident of TSP area provided under circular dated 04.07.2016 does not hold water. Further objection regarding alleged corrections in the application form also loses significance as the same did not mislead the respondents into believing that the petitioner is resident of TSP area.

¶30

In view of discussion made herein above, the special bona fide resident certificate dated 12.11.2013 issued in petitioner’s favour by Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Pratapgarh does not suffer from any infirmity.

¶31

In the result, termination order dated 09.02.2018 issued by the Superintendent of Police, District-Pratapgarh is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate petitioner on the post of Constable forthwith along with all consequential benefits viz. pay fixation, seniority etc. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to claim any back wages for the period, he remained out of services.

¶32

The writ petition stands allowed in above terms. In the peculiar facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶33

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶34

skm

Kuldeep Singh Saktawat v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Singh Saktawat v. State and Ors.

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

Khetram Meghwal Vs State of Rajasthan

Sampat Singh Rathore Vs Maharana Pratap Uni. of Ag. and Tec. and Ors.

Pramod Vs State of Rajasthan

Harbansh Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Dr.Miss.Vineeta Srivastava Vs State and Ors.

Sampat Singh Rathore Vs Maharana Pratap Uni.of Agri. and Tec Andors.