Allowed

Raju Devi Koted v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC5 Jul 2022SAW/379/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a Special Appeal against a Single Judge order denying appointment to ANM post to women holding Adeeb qualification from Jamia Urdu, Aligarh. Relying on Firdos Tarannum, it directed authorities to consider candidates who secured qualification before 2011, granting merit-based appointment and seniority but excluding back wages.

What did the court decide?

Directions to verify marksheets and consider candidates with Adeeb qualification obtained prior to 2011 for ANM post with merit-based seniority, excluding back wages.

Raju Devi Koted Vs State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 379/2022

¶4

Raju Devi Koted D/o Mahesh Chand Wife Of Jayanti Lal Kharadi, Aged About 42 Years, V.p.o. Rampur Sati, Tehsil Rampur Sati, District Dungarpur

¶5

Kumari Sangeeta D/o Gopi Ram W/o Subhash Chandra, Aged About 32 Years, V.p.o. Ghoriwara Khurd Via Mukundgarh, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu

¶6

Ms. Pushpa D/o Rampat W/o Sethi Ram, Aged About 31 Years, Village Dhandhal Lekhu, Post Narwasi, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu

¶7

Raj Bala Lor D/o Amilal Lor W/o Ramniwas Poonia, Aged About 37 Years, Village Narwasi, Post Narwasi, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Hcuru

¶8

Rajbala D/o Magha Ram W/o Ravindra, Aged About 29 Years, Village Narwasi, Post Narwasi, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu

¶9

Saroj Kumari D/o Balbir W/o Vijay Kumar, Aged About 36 Years, Village Pandasi, Post Kankreu Kalan, Tehsil Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu

¶10

Dhapu Kumari D/o Chokha Ram Wo/ Ashok Kumar, Aged About 34 Years, V.p.o. Niradhanu, Tehsil Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu

¶11

Mukesh Kumari D/o Rohtash Kumar, Aged About 30 Years, Village Post Jhanu Khari, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu

¶12

Mukesh S/o Hawa Singh Poonia, Aged About 30 Years, Village Dhandhal Lekhu, Post Narwasi, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu

¶13

Suman D/o Tarachand Poonia, Aged About 28 Years, Village Dhandhal Lekhu, Post Narwasi, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu

¶14

Suman Kumari D/o Mali Ram W/o Surendar Singh, Aged About 31 Years, V.p.o. Maligaon, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu

¶15

Sharmila D/o Nihal Singh Berwal Wo Somveer, Aged About 32 Years, Village Sulkhania Bara, P.o. Sulkhania Chhota, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu

¶16

Manju D/o Ram Singh W/o Balbir Singh, Aged About 38

¶17

(2 of 8) [SAW-379/2022]

¶18

Years, Village Sulkhania Bara, P.o. Sulkhania Chhota, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu

¶19

Anita Kumari D/o Indra Singh W/o Ramesh Kumar, Aged About 34 Years, Village Janau Mithi, Post Sulkhania Chhota, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu

¶20

Asha D/o Hanuman Prasad W/o Rajendra, Aged About 36 Years, Village Janau Mithi, Post Sulkhania Chhota, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu

¶21

Suman Kumari D/o Indra Singh Sihag W/o Ramchander, Aged About 36 Years, Village Janau Mithi, Post Sulkhania Chhota, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu

¶22

----Appellants

¶23

Versus

¶24

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To The Government, Medical And Health (Group-2) Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶25

Director, Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan, Tilak Marg, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur

¶26

Additional Director (Administration), Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan, Tilak Marg, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur

¶27

----Respondents

¶28

For Appellant(s)	:	Mr. Sanjay Kumar Poonia.
		Mr. Ravi Paliwal.
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. K.S. Rajpurohit,AAG.

¶29

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR Judgment

¶30

05/07/2022

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶32

The appellants applied for appointment to the post of ANM in pursuance of advertisement dated 26.02.2013 issued by the Additional Director (Administration), Department of Medical & Health Services, Jaipur. The candidature of the appellants was rejected on the premise that they had acquired qualification of

¶33

(3 of 8)

¶34

[SAW-379/2022]

¶35

“Adeeb” from the Jamia Urdu, Aligarh. The aforesaid qualification was not considered to be equivalent to the one obtained from Secondary School examination, conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer.

¶36

The appellants being aggrieved by the rejection of their candidature for appointment on the post of ANM, on the ground that the educational qualification of Adeeb from Jamiya Urdu, Aligarh is not equivalent to Secondary School Examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer, preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4626 / 2015 (Raju Devi Koted & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) before this Hon’ble Court with the following prayers:-

¶37

a) “by an appropriate writ, order or direction the writ petition filed by the petitioners may kindly be allowed.

¶38

b) By an appropriate writ, order or direction impugned action on the part of respondent authorities in rejecting the candidature of the petitioners for appointment to the post of A.N.M. in pursuance to the advertisement (Annx.6) on the ground that the qualification possessed by the petitioners from an institution which has since been de-recognized may kindly be held illegal and be quashed and set aside.

¶39

c) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment to the post of A.N.M. and if they secure merit then provide appointment to them on the said post in their respective categories.

¶40

(4 of 8)

¶41

[SAW-379/2022]

¶42

d) Any other appropriate order, which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.

¶43

e) Cost of writ petition may please be awarded in favour of the petitioners.”

¶44

The respondents in the reply filed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4626/2015 stated that since the Adeeb examination passed from Jamiya Urdu, Aligarh was not a valid qualification for appointment on the post of A.N.M. and therefore, the candidature of the appellants / petitioners had been rightly rejected as they were not qualified for appointment to the said post.

¶45

The matter came up for consideration before the learned Single Bench on 13.05.2015. The learned Single Bench, taking into consideration the fact that the controversy regarding the validity of the degrees / certificates of Adeeb A Mahir issued by Jamiya Urdu, Aligarh, was pending consideration before the Hon’ble larger Bench in the reference made by Hon’ble Division Bench vide order dated 01.10.2013 passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3248 / 2013, ordered that the instant writ petition be kept pending till the larger Bench reference is answered. The matter was ordered to be adjourned sine die . The learned Single Bench, further ordered that the appointments made in pursuance of the questioned advertisement shall remain subject to the final outcome of these writ petitions.

¶46

The learned Single Bench dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellants vide order dated 14.12.2017 holding

¶47

(5 of 8)

¶48

[SAW-379/2022]

¶49

that the Adeeb qualification obtained from Jamia Urdu, Aligarh had not been recognized by the State of Rajasthan and therefore, no relief could be granted in favour of the writ petitioners. The order dated 14.12.2017 is assailed by the writ petitioners in this intra Court appeal.

¶50

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Division Bench in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Firdos Tarannum & Anr. in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 534 / 2005 (decided on 12.01.2022) considered the issue regarding qualification of Adib-Mahir acquired from Jamia Urdu, Aligarh, to be declared as equivalent to senior secondary examination and proceeded to hold that the recognition of Jamia Urdu Institute had been withdrawn by the State Government in the year 2011 and therefore those candidates, who had acquired the requisite qualification prior to 2011, deserves to be considered for appointment and in case they were otherwise eligible, they shall be granted all consequential benefits. The operative portion of the judgment of Firdos Tarannum (Supra) reads as under:-

¶51

“Under the circumstances, we do not find that the learned Single Judge committed any error. We may record that in view of the conflict between the two decisions of the Division Benches of this Court in the cases of Altaf Bano (supra) and Firdos Tarannum (supra), a reference was made to the larger bench. In Firdos Tarannum (supra) Supreme Court has remanded the proceedings before this Court and which are now being decided by this judgment which in any case is not in conflict with the view expressed in the case of Altaf Bano(supra). The reference to the larger bench would therefore become one of no

¶52

(6 of 8)

¶53

[SAW-379/2022]

¶54

consequence. The learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition had directed the State authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III Urdu (minority language) pursuant to the said advertisement dated 07.11.2000 and if appointed she would be granted all consequential benefits. Several years have passed and the litigation remained pending at one stage or the other. We do not think that the State exchequer should be burdened with the payment of idle wages for the past period to the petitioner even if she were to be appointed. Under the circumstances, while disposing of this appeal, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is modified by holding that the State authorities shall consider the petitioner for appointment to the post in question according to her merit position and if appointed, she shall be granted all consequential benefits except back wages for the past period. In other words, the petitioner would have the benefit of seniority for the past period from the date the person below the petitioner in merit list was appointed. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.”

¶55

Learned counsel for the appellants apprised the Court that after judgment of the Division Bench rendered in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Firdos Tarannum & Anr. [D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.534/2005] dated 12.01.2022, a S.B. Civil Misc. Application No.108/2022 (Raju Devi Koted & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) for recalling of order dated 14.12.2017 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4626/2022 (Raju Devi Koted & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) was filed. However, the learned Single Bench vide order dated 19.04.2022 dismissed the recalling application.

¶56

(7 of 8) [SAW-379/2022]

¶57

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appointment on the post of ANM was denied to the appellants / petitioners in the selection process initiated pursuant to Advertisement dated 26.02.2013 issued by Additional Director (Administration), Department of Medical & Health Services, Jaipur, for the sole reason that Adeeb qualification acquired from Jamiya Urdu Aligarh was not considered to be a valid equivalent qualification to Secondary School Examination conducted by Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer, Rajasthan. However, as the appellants had acquired the qualification before the year 2011 when the State Government withdrew recognition thereof, the appellants herein are entitled to be appointed on the ratio of Firdos Tarannum’s judgment (supra).

¶58

Per contra, Shri K.S. Rajpurohit, learned AAG submitted that the qualification of Adeeb possessed by the appellants has not been declared equivalent qualification by the State Government to the qualification of Secondary Examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer, Rajasthan, the appellants / petitioners are not entitled for appointment on the post of ANM. He therefore, prayed for dismissal of the Special Appeal.

¶59

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶60

In our considered opinion, the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of Firdos Tarannum Case (supra) has specifically taken note of the fact that recognition to the Jamia Urdu Institute had been withdrawn by the State Government in the year 2011 and therefore those candidates who had acquired the requisite qualification prior to the year 2011 could not be deprived selection

¶61

(8 of 8)

¶62

[SAW-379/2022]

¶63

on the basis of the Adeeb qualification acquired prior to the year 2011.

¶64

In view of above discussion, the present Special Appeal is allowed with a direction to the respondents to verify the mark sheets as well as the certificates issued to the appellants/petitioners prior to the consideration of their candidature for appointment on the post of ANM. In case it is found that the degree / certificate of Adeeb has been obtained by the appellants prior to the year 2011 then the appellants may be considered and offered appointment on the post of ANM according to their merit position with all consequential benefits except back wages for the period they were not in service. In other words, the appellants would be entitled for the benefit of seniority from the date person junior to them in merit has been given appointment but shall not be given any back wages for the period they were not in service. The needful exercise will be done by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of judgment. It is however made clear that if any of the appellants have acquired the qualification of Adeeb after the year 2011, they would not be entitled for consideration for appointment on the post of ANM.

¶65

Accordingly, the instant D.B. Special Appeal Writ is disposed of.

¶66

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶67

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

¶68

105- Prashant/-

Raju Devi Koted v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Devi Koted v. State of Rajasthan

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

Raysahab Bishnoi Vs Union of India

Shravan Ram Bishnoi Vs Union of India

Neeraj Sharma Vs Principle Commissioner of Income Tax-I

Ramesh Vs State of Rajasthan

Harka Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

State of Rajasthan Vs Dr. Pratibha Sanadhya