Disposed

Gomi v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Feb 2022SAW/940/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Division Bench order upholding the disposal of an appeal by applying the precedent in State of Rajasthan vs. Firdos Tarannum. The court held the authority should offer the petitioner appointment based on merit without granting back wages, adjusted seniority from the date a junior appointee was lifted.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be offered appointment on merit with consequential benefits; no back wages for past period; seniority calculated from date of junior's appointment.

Gomi Vs State of Rajasthan — Specific Performance | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 940/2019

¶3

Gomi D/o Harkha Ram W/o Danaram, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Phulasar Chokhla, Tehsil Baytu, District Barmer (Raj.).

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶7

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

¶8

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

¶9

Board Of Secondary Education, Ajjmer, Through Its Secretary.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Appellant(s) : Mr. K.R. Saran through V.C. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Vyas through V.C.

¶12

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

¶13

Order

¶14

02/02/2022

¶15

This appeal is filed by the original petitioner to challenge the judgment dated 20.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10748/2018. The petitioner had applied for the post of ANM claiming that her qualification of Adeeb obtained from Jamia Urdu, Aligarh which was equivalent to secondary was a recognized course.

¶16

This controversy has been resolved by a Division Bench in case of State of Rajasthan and Others Vs. Firdos Tarannum

¶17

(D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No.534/2005 – decided on

¶18

12.01.2022) in which Following observations have been made:

¶19

(2 of 2)

¶20

[SAW-940/2019]

¶21

“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 consequence.

¶22

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.

¶23

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.”

¶24

Under the circumstances, this appeal is also disposed of along the same line as in the case of Firdos Tarannum (supra). The petitioner would be offered appointment and her past period would be regulated as provided in the said judgment dated 12.01.2022.

¶25

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J

¶26

(AKIL KURESHI),CJ

¶27

147-a.asopa/-

Gomi v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gomi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shobha Vs State of Rajasthan

Deendayal Bang Vs Union of India

State of Rajasthan Vs Gaj Singh Mehta

Doula Ram Vs Union of India

State and Ors. Vs Smt. Seema Parihar

Oman Singh Rawat Vs State of Rajasthan