Allowed

Raj Bala and Ors. v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC4 Apr 2022SAW/574/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A division bench of the Rajasthan High Court decided a special appeal contesting a single bench order regarding the equivalence of Adeeb qualification to Secondary Examination for appointment as Women Health Worker. Relying on Firdos Tarannum, the court allowed the appeal, directing appointment consideration without back wages.

What did the court decide?

Appellants offered appointments; past services regulated per judgment dated 12.01.2022, excluding back wages.

Raj Bala and Ors. Vs State and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

(1 of 4)

¶2

[SAW-574/2018]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶4

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 574/2018

¶5

Raj Bala Daughter Of Shri Girdhari Lal, By Caste Jat, Resident Of V.P.O. Seowa, Tehsil- Rajgarh, District- Churu.

¶6

Sonu Kumari Daughter Of Shri Sumer Singh, By Caste Jat, Resident Of V.P.O. Khinwasar, Tehsil And DistrictChuru.

¶7

Sumitra Daughter Of Shri Bhane Singh Sihag, By Caste Jat, Resident Of V.P.O. Bass Nehra, Post- Hadiyal, TehsilTaranagar, District- Churu.

¶8

Kavita Daughter Of Shri Ram Kishan, By Caste Lakhara, Resident Of V.P.O Rajpura, Tehsil- Taranagar, DistrictChuru.

¶9

Anita Jat Daughter Of Shri Hari Singh Jat, By Caste Jat, Resident Of V.P.O. Rajpura, Tehsil- Taranagar, DistrictChuru.

¶10

Sushila Kumari Daughter Of Hari Singh Sihag, By Caste Jat, Resident Of V.P.O. Rajpura, Tehsil- Taranagar, DistrictChuru.

¶11

----Appellants

¶12

Versus

¶13

The State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Secretarait, Jaipur Rajasthan

¶14

The Director, Directorate Medical And Health Services, Tilak Marg, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶15

The Additional Director Administration, Medical And Health Services, Tilak Marg, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶16

----Respondents

¶17

For Appellant(s) : Mr. K.R. Saharan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Karan Singh Rajpurohit, AAG

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶19

Order

¶20

04/04/2022

¶21

The instant special appeal (writ) has been filed by the appellants herein for assailing the order dated 14.12.2017 passed

¶22

(2 of 4)

¶23

[SAW-574/2018]

¶24

by the learned Single Bench in a bunch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9189/2015 which came to be rejected in light of the judgments in the cases of Sumitra Vs. State of

¶25

Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13325/2015, decided on 27.11.2015) and State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Firdos Tarannum reported in WLC (Raj.) 2006(2) 596 . The following prayers were made in the writ petitions filed by the petitioners.

¶26

“(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may be directed to treat the qualification of Adeeb, Jamia Urdu, Aligarh ( Annexure-1 ) possessed by the petitioners equivalent to the qualification of Secondary Examination from Board of Secondary Education , Ajmer.

¶27

(ii). by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to provide appointment to the petitioners on the post of Women Health Worker if they are found in merit, in pursuant to the advertisement dated 26.02.2013 ( Annexure-4 ) with all consequential benefits while treating the qualification of Adeeb, Jamia Urdu, Aligarh equivalent to the qualification of Secondary Examination form Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer.”

¶28

The controversy at hand was resolved by Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal (W) No.534/2005 ( State of Rajasthan Vs. Ms. Firdos Tarannum & Anr.) decided on 12.01.2022 wherein, it was held as under:-

¶29

“ 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

¶30

(3 of 4)

¶31

[SAW-574/2018]

¶32

(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 consequence.

¶33

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.

¶34

The appeal is disposed of accordingly. ”

¶35

Consequently, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1859/2018 filed by Santosh and others for assailing the very same impugned judgment dated 19.12.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12335/2015 was allowed in terms of the order passed in the case of Firdos Tarannum (Supra) .

¶36

Learned counsel representing the respondents is not in a position to dispute the fact that the case of the appellants herein stands at par with the appellants in the Special Appeal (Writ)

¶37

(4 of 4)

¶38

[SAW-574/2018]

¶39

No.1859/2018 (Santosh & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) decided on 02.02.2022.

¶40

Under the circumstances, this instant appeal deserves to be decided in the same line as in the case of Firdos Tarannum (Supra) . The appellants would be offered appointments and their past services would be regulated as provided in the judgment dated 12.01.2022 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Ms. Firdos Tarannum).

¶41

The instant appeal is disposed of in these terms.

¶42

No order as to cost.

¶43

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶44

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

¶45

47-/Tikam/Devesh/-

Raj Bala and Ors. v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Bala and Ors. 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vineet Tiwari Vs the State of Rajasthan

Om Prakash Vs State of Rajasthan

Mr. Mahendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Jitendra Singh Chouhan Vs State of Rajasthan