Dismissed

Goga Devi v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC18 Sept 2023CW/17487/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging rejection of appointment as an 'Outstanding Sports Person', the High Court of Rajasthan held that the petitioner was ineligible due to her tournament certificate not meeting the National or State level requirement. The Court also ruled that rejections based on initial mark-cut failure did not preclude later merit-based examination, dismissing the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Goga Devi Vs State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:30115]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17487/2022

¶4

Goga Devi D/o Shri Sultan Ram, Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of Vpo Sameja, Kothi, Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jalore, Rajasthan.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Govind Suthar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Piyush Bhandari for Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG

¶11

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶12

Order

¶13

18/09/2023

¶14

By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has raised a grievance that the respondents have not given appointment to any of the persons of ‘Outstanding Sports Person’ category, including the petitioner.

¶15

The facts in short are that, the petitioner had applied as an ‘Outstanding Sports Person’ pursuant to LDC recruitment notification of 2013 and had staked her claim towards the seats ear-marked for the category of ‘Outstanding Sports Person’.

¶16

The petitioner secured 28.217 marks, whereas the cut-off of her category (Outstanding Sports Person) was 31.662.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has preferred two writ petitions and both of them have

(2 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JD:30115]

[CW-17487/2022]

disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider her representations, and all the representations came to be disposed of by the respondents citing that the petitioner has failed to secure marks more than or equal to the cut-off of her category.

¶22

He submitted that when the final select list was issued, no person from ‘Outstanding Sports Person’ category was appointed, which shows that the petitioner’s case has not been considered for appointment in the category of ‘Outstanding Sports Persons’. 6. Mr. Piyush Bhandari, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents have filed a reply, inter alia, asserting that on the basis of the certificate which the petitioner had produced, she cannot be treated to be as an ‘Outstanding Sports Person’, inasmuch as she had relied upon a certificate of winning in the game of Soft Ball in ‘Soft Ball Meet for Boys/Girls 2006-2007 tournament held by the University of Bikaner, Bikaner. 7. Learned State Counsel argued that such certificate does not entitle the petitioner to be termed as an ‘Outstanding Sports Person’ in view of the condition No. 6 of the advertisement. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the certificate produced by the petitioner so also the condition No. 6 of the advertisement.

¶23

A perusal of the certificate clearly shows that the petitioner has taken part in the Soft Ball Meet for Boys/Girls 2006-2007 tournament held by the University of Bikaner, Bikaner. Such tournament is neither a National Level Tournament nor a State Level Tournament entitling her to be termed as an ‘Outstanding

(3 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JD:30115]

[CW-17487/2022]

Sports Person’. The petitioner has rightly been declared ineligible to be considered as an ‘Outstanding Sports Person’.

¶28

This Court is not much convinced with the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and the initial argument that the respondents have rejected petitioner’s representations solely on the basis of the cut-off, whereas now, they have issued select list in which no person of the ‘Outstanding Sports Person’ category has been given appointment, which shows that petitioner’s candidature has not been considered at all.

¶29

In the opinion of this Court, when the petitioner’s earlier representations were decided, there was no occasion for the respondents to consider her candidature, as she had failed to secure requisite marks. 12. Obviously, when they did not find suitable person(s) in ‘Outstanding Sports Person’ category, they have examined the petitioner’s candidature on merit. Therefore, the mere fact that the petitioner’s earlier representations were rejected on the ground of she not being able to secure marks more than or equal to the cut-off cannot be used by the petitioner to her advantage to contend that her case as ‘Outstanding Sports Person’ has not been examined.

¶30

This Court does not find any error or irregularity to be committed by the respondents, more particularly, in light of the specific stand in the reply and for what has been stated hereinabove.

¶31

The writ petition, therefore, fails.

¶32

(4 of 4) [CW-17487/2022]

¶33

[2023:RJ-JD:30115]

¶34

The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶35

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶36

12-akansha/-

Goga Devi v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Goga Devi v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aaved Hassan Vs the State of Rajasthan

Kana Ram Garg Vs State of Rajasthan

Kailash Singh Rajpurohit Vs Managing Director

Ghamee Bishnoi Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Amandeep Brar Vs State of Rajasthan

Ujjawal Joshi Vs the State of Rajasthan