Partly allowed

Sheetal Ameta v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC23 Jan 2023CW/1946/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan adjudicated multiple writ petitions regarding teacher recruitment. The Court held that women marrying residents of Scheduled Tribes/Poor Scheduled Tribes (TSP) areas should be treated as TSP residents for recruitment based on a prior judgment. The Court allowed most petitions but dismissed two where marriage occurred after the notification or was unproven.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to treat petitioners as TSP area residents, consider TSP certification benefits, and process meritorious candidates for appointment within two months.

Sheetal Ameta Vs the State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/002493]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8888/2020

¶4

Chetna Tripathi W/o Shri Bhuvnesh Upadhyay And D/o Shri Nand Kishore Bhatt, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Post Madar, Tehsil Badgaon, District Udaipur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director, Primary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Bikaner.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1946/2020

¶11

Sheetal Ameta W/o Hitesh Ameta, Aged About 26 Years, R/o 655 Kurabad, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

¶12

----Petitioner

¶13

Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan,
Through Secretary Department
Education Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Panchayati Raj
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Director, Directorate Of Primary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4. The Coordinator, Directorate
Elementary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
5. Secretary, Department Of
Personnel, Secretariat, Jaipur.
6. Zila Parishad, Through The
Chief Executive Officer, Zila
Parishad Udaipur. ----Respondents

¶14

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7939/2020

¶15

Gayatri Paliwal W/o Sh. Chandra Prakash Paliwal, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Plot No. 2, Gayatri Nagar, Hiran Magri Sec. 5, District

¶16

[2023/RJJD/002493] (2 of 19)

¶17

[CW-8888/2020]

¶18

Udaipur, Rajasthan.	Versus	----Petitioner
1.	The	State Of Rajasthan,
	Thro	ugh Secretary Department
	Educ	ation Department,
	Gove	rnment Of Rajasthan,
	Secr	etariat, Jaipur.
2.	The	Secretary, Panchayati Raj
	Depa	rtment, Government Of
	Raja	sthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3.	Direc Educ	tor, Directorate Of Primary ation, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4.	The	Coordinator, Directorate
	Elem Raja	entary Education Bikaner, sthan.
5.	Zila	Parishad, Through The
	Chief	Executive Officer, Zila
	Paris	had Udaipur.

¶19

----Petitioner

¶20

----Respondents

¶21

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9304/2020

¶22

Neetu Sharma W/o Sh. Lokesh Joshi, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village - 370, Bhadavat Phala, Tehsil - Salumbar, District - Udaipur, Rajasthan.

¶23

----Petitioner

¶24

	Versus
1.	The	State Of	Rajasthan,
	Thro	ugh Secretary	Department
	Educ	ation Gover	nment Of
	Raja	sthan, Secretar	iat, Jaipur.
2.	The	Secretary, Pa	nchayati Raj
	Dep	artment, Gov	ernment Of
	Raja	sthan, Secretar	iat, Jaipur.
3.	The	Director, Dir	ectorate Of
	Prim	ary Educatio	n, Bikaner,
	Raja	sthan.
4.	The	Coordinator,	Directorate
	Elem	entary Educat	ion Bikaner,

¶25

(3 of 19) [CW-8888/2020]

¶26

[2023/RJJD/002493]

¶27

	Rajasthan.
5.	The Zila Parishad,	Through The
	Chief Executive	Officer, Zila
	Parishad, Udaipur.

¶28

----Respondents

¶29

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9305/2020

¶30

Pooja Jain W/o Sandeep Kothari, Aged About 31 Years, Village Nai, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

¶31

----Petitioner

¶32

Versus
1. The	State Of R	ajasthan,
Thro	ugh Secretary De	partment
Educ	ation Governm	ent Of
Raja	sthan, Secretariat,	Jaipur.
2. The	Secretary, Pancha	yati Raj
Depa Raja	rtment, Govern sthan, Secretariat,	ment Of Jaipur.
3. The	Director, Directo	rate Of
Prim Raja	ary Education, sthan.	Bikaner,
4. The	Coordinator, Di	rectorate
Elem Raja	entary Education sthan.	Bikaner,
5. The	Zila Parishad, Thro	ugh The
Chie	f Executive Offic	er, Zila
Paris	had, Udaipur.

¶33

----Respondents

¶34

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9650/2020

¶35

Ranjita Paliwal W/o Nitin Paliwal, Aged About 41 Years, C-128 O, Tilak Nagar, Pratapgarh District Pratapgarh.

¶36

	----Petitioner Versus
1.	State Of Rajasthan, Through
	The Secretary Department Of
	Education Government Of
	Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2.	The Secretary, Panchayati Raj
	Department, Government Of

(4 of 19)

[2023/RJJD/002493]

[CW-8888/2020]

Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Director, Directorate Of Primary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4. The Coordinator, Directorate
Elementary Education Bikaner, Rajasthan.
5. Secretary, Department Of
Personnel, Secretariat, Jaipur
6. Zila Parishad, Through The
Chief Executive Officer, Zila
Parishad Pratapgarh.
7. Chief District Education Officer,
Head Quarter, Pratapgarh. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10480/2020 Divya Sharma W/o Sourabh Joshi, Aged About 26 Years, Village Brahmano Ka Kherwara, Tehsil Jhadol, District Udaipur,
Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through
Secretary Department
Education Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Secretary, Panchayati Raj
Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Directorate Of
Primary Education, Bikaner,
Rajasthan.
4. The Coordinator, Directorate
Elementary Education Bikaner, Rajasthan.
5. The Zila Parishad, Through The
Chief Executive Officer, Zila
Parishad, Udaipur.

¶41

----Respondents

¶42

Divya Sharma W/o Sourabh Joshi, Aged About 26 Years, Village Brahmano Ka Kherwara, Tehsil Jhadol, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

¶43

----Petitioner

¶44

----Respondents

¶45

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10486/2020

(5 of 19)

[2023/RJJD/002493]

[CW-8888/2020]

Sharmila Kumari Kumawat W/o Goverdhan Lal Kumawat, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village And Post Gadariya Was Tehsil Chhoti Sadri, District Pratapgarh.

¶50

----Petitioner

¶51

	Versus
1.	State Of Rajasthan, Through
	Secretary Department
	Education Government Of
	Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.	The Secretary Panchayat Raj
	Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3.	Director, Directorate Of Primary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4.	The Coordinator, Directorate
	Elementary Education Bikaner, Rajasthan.
5.	Zila Parishad Through The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Pratapgarh.
6. S.B. Civil Writ P	Chief District Education Officer (Headquarter), Pratapgarh. ----Respondents etition No. 11199/2020
Krishna Menaria W/o Nirmal 548, Kheda Kanpur, Matoon,	Menaria, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur. ----Petitioner Versus
1.	State Of Rajasthan, Through
	Secretary Department
	Education Government Of
	Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.	The Secretary, Panchayati Raj
	Department, Government Of
	Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3.	Director, Directorate Of Primary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4.	The Coordinator, Directorate

----Petitioner

(6 of 19)

[2023/RJJD/002493]

[CW-8888/2020]

	Elementary Education Bikaner, Rajasthan.
5.	Zila Parishad, Through The
	Chief Executive Officer, Zila
	Parishad Udaipur.
6.	Chief District Education Officer (Headquarter), Udaipur.
	----Respondents

¶57

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13083/2020

¶58

Monika Tiwari D/o Gopal Lal Tiwari, W/o Ashish Sharma, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village And Post Dhamottar, Tehsil And Dist. Pratapgarh, Raj.

¶59

----Petitioner

¶60

Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Department
Education Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Secretary, Panchayati Raj
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Director, Directorate Of Primary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4. The Coordinator, Directorate Elementary Education Bikaner, Rajasthan.
5. Zila Parishad, Through The
Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Pratapgarh.
6. Chief District Education Officer (Headquarter), Pratapgarh. ----Respondents

¶61

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13286/2020

¶62

Anita Kunwar Chundawat D/o Nathu Singh Chundawat, W/o Hemant Singh Chauhan, Aged About 33 Years, R/o C/o Hemant Singh Chauhan 43 Airport Road Kapil Vihar Near Munt View School (Rural) Debari, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner

(7 of 19)

[2023/RJJD/002493]

[CW-8888/2020]

Versus

1.	The	State Of Rajasthan,
	Thro	ugh Secretary Department
	Educ	ation, Government Of
	Raja	sthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2.	The Udai	District Education Officer, pur.
3.	The	Secretary Panchayati Raj
	Depa	rtment, Government Of
	Raja	sthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
4.	Dire Educ	ctor, Directorate Of Primary ation, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
5.	The	Coordinator, Directorate
	Elem Raja	entary Education Bikaner, sthan.
6.	Zila	Parishad, Through The
	Chie	f Executive Officer, Zila
	Paris	had Udaipur.

¶69

----Respondents

¶70

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13347/2020

¶71

Minakashi Purohit D/o Narayana Lal W/o Vikram Kumar, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Purohitvas, Village Amthala, District Sirohi, Rajasthan.

¶72

----Petitioner

¶73

	Versus
1.	The State Of	Rajasthan,
	Through Secretary	Department
	Education Gover	nment Of
	Rajasthan, Secretar	iat, Jaipur.
2.	The Secretary, Pa	nchayati Raj
	Department, Gove	rnment Of
	Rajasthan, Secretar	iat, Jaipur.
3.	Director, Directorat	e Of Primary
	Education, Bikaner,	Rajasthan.
4.	The Coordinator,	Directorate
	Elementary Educat	ion Bikaner,
	Rajasthan.
5.	Secretary, Depa	rtment Of

¶74

(8 of 19) [CW-8888/2020]

¶75

[2023/RJJD/002493]

¶76

	Personnel, Secretariat, Jaipur.
6.	Zila Parishad, Through The
	Chief Executive Officer, Zila
	Parishad Sirohi.
7.	Chief District Education Officer,
	Head Quarter, Sirohi.

¶77

----Respondents

¶78

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1413/2021

¶79

Savita Rathore D/o Shri Rajendra Singh Rathore W/o Shri Hemendra Singh Shaktawat, Aged About 30 Years, R/o 127, Palach, Post Karda, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur.

¶80

----Petitioner

¶81

Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through
Secretary Department
Education Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Panchayat Raj
Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Director, Directorate Of Primary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4. Zila Parishad, Through The
Chief Executive Office, Zila
Parishad, Udaipur.
5. Chief District Education Officer (Headquarter), Udaipur. ----Respondents

¶82

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2464/2021

¶83

Kavita Vairagi D/o Prakash Chandra W/o Devendra Kumar Bairagi, Aged About 21 Years, Behind Devendra Talkies, Neemuch Road, Choti Sadari, District Pratapgarh, Raj.

¶84

----Petitioner

¶85

	Versus
1.	State Of	Rajasthan, Through
	Secretary,	Department Of
	Education	Government Of
	Rajasthan,	Secretariat, Jaipur.

(9 of 19)

[2023/RJJD/002493]

[CW-8888/2020]

2.	The Secretary, Panchayati Raj
	Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat Jaipur.
3.	Director, Directorate Of Primary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4.	The Coordinator, Directorate Elementary Education Bikaner, Rajasthan.
5.	Zila Parishad, Through Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Pratapgarh.
6. S.B. Civil Writ Petiti	Chief District Education Officer (Headquarter), Pratapgarh. ----Respondents on No. 16141/2021
Leha Gaur W/o Vilaxan Singh D Years, R/o Dak Bangla Road, Rajasthan. Ver	/o Gopal Singh, Aged About 32 Civil Line Colony, Pratapgarh, ----Petitioner sus
1.	State Of Rajasthan, Through
	Secretary Department
	Education Government Of
	Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.	The Secretary, Panchayati Raj
	Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3.	Director, Directorate Of Primary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4.	Zila Parishad, Through The
	Chief Executive Officer Zila
	, Parishad, Pratapgarh.
5.	Chief District Education Officer, (Headquarter), Pratapgarh. ----Respondents

¶90

----Petitioner

¶91

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4409/2022

¶92

Meena Rathore D/o Shri Bhagirath, Aged About 29 Years, W/o Vikram Sahau, R/o Village And Post Swaroopganj, Tehsil Chhoti

(10 of 19)

[2023/RJJD/002493]

[CW-8888/2020]

Sadri, Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.

¶97

----Petitioner

¶98

Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan,	Thr	ough
Secretary Dep	art	ment
Education Governme	nt	Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat,	Jaip	ur.
2. The Secretary Pancha	yati	Raj
Department, Governm	ent	Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat,	Jaip	ur.
3. Director, Directorate Of	Pri	mary
Education, Bikaner, Raj	asth	an.
4. Zila Parishad, Throu	gh	The
Chief Executive Offic	er,	Zila
Parishad, Pratapgarh.
5. Chief District Educatio	n Of	ficer
Primary Education Quarter, Pratapgarh. ----Resp	ond	Head ents

¶99

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13083/2022

¶100

Raj. Pradesh Niji College Sangh Rajasthan, Having Its Regional Office At 88, Radha Krishanpuram, Nayapura, Chokha Road, Chopasani, Jodhpur Through Its Secretary Ram Chandra Singh Son Of Shri Sukha Ram, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Flat No. 106, Vardhman Apartment, Devi Marg, Banipark, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶101

----Petitioner

¶102

	Versus
1.	State Of	Rajasthan,	Thr	ough
	Secretary,	Departm	ent	Of
	Education,	Secretariat,	Jaip	ur.
2.	Director	Of Ele	men	tary
	Education,	Directora	te	Of
	Elementar	y Education,	Bika	ner.
3.	National	Council For	Tea	cher
	Education,	Through Its	Me	mber
	Secretary,	G-7, Sec	tor	10,
	Dwarka,	Near Metro	Sta	tion,
	New Delhi.

¶103

(11 of 19) [CW-8888/2020]

¶104

[2023/RJJD/002493]

¶105

4.	Western Regional Committee Of
	National Council For Teacher
	Education, Through Its
	Regional Director, G-7, Sector
	10, Dwarka, Near Metro
	Station, New Delhi.
5.	Coordinator, Pre. D.el.ed. Exam
	And Registrar, Education
	Department Examinations,
	Rajasthan, Bikaner.

¶106

----Respondents

¶107

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Rakesh Arora a/w Mr. Naresh Singh
		Mr. VLS Rajpurohit Mr. Papu Sangwa
		Mr. Tanwar Singh Mr. Avinash Acharya Ms. Sweta Purohit
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG a/w Mr. Deepak Chandak

¶108

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶109

Judgment

¶110

23/01/2023

¶111

Since all the instant petitions involve a common controversy, though with marginal variation in the contextual facts, therefore, for the purposes of the present analogous adjudication, the facts and the prayer clauses are being taken from the above-numbered S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9304/2020, while treating the same as a lead case.

¶112

The prayer clauses read as under: “(i) by an appropriate writ or direction the respondents may be directed to allow the petitioner to participate in the process of Teacher Grade-III, LevelII subject English Recruitment, 2018 for the post of Teacher Grade-III, Level II in pursuant to

(12 of 19)

[2023/RJJD/002493]

[CW-8888/2020]

advertisement no.02/2018 dated 31.07.2018 (Annexure-2) and if petitioner come into the merits than appointment may be granted to the petitioner on the post of Teacher Grade-III, Level-II subject English.

¶117

(ii) By an appropriate writ order or direction, that the respondents may kindly be directed to consider Special TSP Certificate for the post of Teacher Grade III, Level II subject English in pursuance of the Advertisement No.02/2018 dated 31.07.2018 (Annexure-2)

¶118

(iii) Any other appropriate order which is deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be also passed in favour of the petitioner.”

¶119

Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner in the lead case, are that the Directorate, Primary Education, State of Rajasthan issued two notifications No.01/2018 & 02/2018, both dated 31.07.2018, in relation to recruitment for the post of Teacher Grade III Level II under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996; notification No.01/2018 was pertaining to Non-TSP Area, while notification No.02/2018 was pertaining to TSP Area; vide both the said notifications, online applications for the aforementioned post were invited from the eligible candidates of the respective area; the last date, as stipulated in the notifications, was 25.08.2018, for filling the online application form; being an eligible candidate, the petitioner applied for the said post.

¶120

At the time of filling up the application form, the petitioner being the domicile resident of Non-TSP Area, applied for the post in question in the category of Non-TSP Area, although in the year

(13 of 19)

[2023/RJJD/002493]

[CW-8888/2020]

2013 i.e. prior to issuance of the notification, she got married to one Lokesh Joshi, who was resident of TSP Area, and thus, has been residing with him thereat, since then. And that, on count of her domicile status at the time of filling up the application form for the post in question, the petitioner was also not issued the Special Bonafide Certificate (TSP Certificate), and therefore, she was having no option, but to apply for the post in the category of NonTSP Area.

¶125

However on 21.10.2019, the State Government issued a notification, whereby it has been notified that after marriage of a person, with a person of TSP Area, the said person shall be treated as bonafide resident of TSP Area, with effect from 16.06.2013; whereupon the petitioner applied for the TSP Certificate, and the same was issued to the petitioner by the competent authority.

¶126

Upon obtaining the requisite TSP Certificate, the petitioner approached the competent authority (respondents) to consider her candidature for the post in question, while treating her to be a candidate of TSP Area, on the strength of the TSP Certificate so issued by the competent authority, but the necessary consideration was not made by the respondents; aggrieved whereby, the instant petition has been preferred before this Hon’ble Court, claiming the aforementioned reliefs.

¶127

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that despite the issuance of the aforementioned State Government Notification dated 21.10.2019, which was made applicable retrospectively, i.e. w.e.f.16.06.2013, as also undisputed factum of issuance of the TSP Certificate, and the fact that the petitioners are otherwise

(14 of 19)

[2023/RJJD/002493]

[CW-8888/2020]

eligible, suitable and meritorious, in all respects, for the post in question, the respondents are not treating them as a candidate(s) of TSP Area and also not calling them for documents verification and other formalities, for the purposes of their appointment on the post in question. Thus, as per learned counsel, such inaction on the part of the respondents calls for interference by this Court, and issuance of necessary directions in that regard.

¶132

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submit that apart from the aforementioned State Notification dated 21.10.2019, the controversy herein regarding Special Domicile Status of Women married to a person of permanent resident of TSP Area has also been settled by this Court in the case of Smt. Twarita Gehlot Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15540/2017 decided on 14.12.2017).

¶133

8.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners thus submit that in the aforementioned backdrop, the respondents are under a legal obligation to consider the candidature of the petitioners for the post in question, while treating them as TSP Area candidates, and accord them the appointment on the post in question; apart therefrom, learned counsel also submit that in certain cases, the writ petitions preferred by the similarly situated candidates were allowed by this Hon’ble Court, and furthermore, in some of the cases, persons lesser meritorious than the petitioners have been accorded appointment on the post in question, by the respondents.

¶134

Lastly, while seeking indulgence of this Court in favour of the petitioners, learned counsel for the petitioners, as regards the above-numbered instant S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10480/2020

(15 of 19)

[2023/RJJD/002493]

[CW-8888/2020]

(Divya Sharma Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2464/2021 (Kavita Vairagi Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.), submitted that in the case of petitioner-Divya Sharma, her marriage with a person (r/o TSP Area) was solemnized on 12.05.2019 i.e. after the issuance of the notification for the post in question; while in relation to the case of petitioner-Kavita Vairagi, as per learned counsel, there is no disclosure on record pertaining to date of her marriage.

¶139

On the other hand, Mr. Pankaj Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Deepak Chandak, appearing on behalf of the State-respondents, opposed the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. 11. Learned Additional Advocate General at the outset, has taken a preliminary objection to the effect that the present petitions have been preferred after an inordinate delay of more than two years, from the date of notification issued in the year 2018 pertaining to the post in question, and thus, on that count alone, the present petitions deserve dismissal.

¶140

Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that the delay in filing the present petitions is fatal, on count of the fact that the petitioners did not remain vigilant to prefer the petitions before completion of the recruitment process in question, and thus, when the recruitment process for the post in question is already over, the petitioners do not deserve the reliefs, as prayed for in the present petitions, from this Court.

¶141

Learned Additional Advocate General also submits that the petitioners are not entitled for the reliefs prayed for, also on the ground that the recruitment process in question is already over

(16 of 19)

[2023/RJJD/002493]

[CW-8888/2020]

and the selected candidates, in their respective category (TSP) have already been accorded appointments, and thus, in case the petitioners succeeds, it will have an adverse impact upon the career prospects of those duly selected candidates, which is clearly impermissible in the eye of law.

¶146

13.1 Furthermore, as per learned Additional Advocate General, in case the petitioners are granted relief in the present petitions, other similarly situated persons, who have applied under the NonTSP Area category and could not succeed in the recruitment process, shall also prefer writ petitions seeking similar relief, which also, if granted, would further disturb the final select lists of the candidates, who have already been granted appointments, in pursuance of the recruitment process in question.

¶147

13.2 As regards applicability of the judgment rendered in Smt. Twarita Gehlot (supra) , learned Additional Advocate General submits that the factual matrix of the present cases, clearly disentitles the present petitioners, from seeking the relief, as granted vide the said judgment.

¶148

Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case, alongwith the judgment referred by learned counsel for the petitioners. 15. At the outset, owing to the bearing of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Smt. Twarita Gehlot (supra), the relevant portion of the same is reproduced as hereunder:

¶149

“After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing precedent laws, this Court is of the opinion that time and again the precedent law has settled the issue that after marriage a woman acquires the domicile of the place of her husband and, therefore, she has to be treated for all

(17 of 19)

[2023/RJJD/002493]

[CW-8888/2020]

practical purposes a citizen of that particular region. The petitioners who are married ladies and apparently from the same caste as that of their husband have come to the TSP area concern on account of their marriage and, therefore, they have to be treated as a part of the family and they too need to be extended all benefits that are available to the residents of those TSP area. The factum of marriage as well as the factum of petitioners having bonafide residence certificate and special bonafide residence certificate is not denied by the respondents. The said certificates are on account of husband's place of residence, rather then, that of parents. In an institution of marriage any certificate of a woman, may that be, election voter ID card, passport, ration card, aadhar card, bank details or any other educational certificates or employment certificate etc., includes address of husband for all practical purposes. Law itself permits such address as the permanent address for all future legal and financial transactions, therefore, in view of the above, this Court after looking into the complete precedent laws as well as arguments made by learned counsel for the parties finds that the petitioners deprivation on account of technicality of circular dated 4.7.2016 is not appropriate as the circular dated 4.7.2017 does not at all deal with the conditions post-matrimony. The validity of circular has not been gone into as the circular is not under challenge. The condition of matrimony is not dealt with in the circular dated 4.7.2016. Ours is one country and one constitution. Citizenship as per the Constitution is one and, therefore, matrimony cannot be a detrimental factor to a lady only on account that she has changed area and has shifted from her parental family to her matrimonial home. The purpose of single citizenship of the country is same and cannot be taken away by the respondents on mere technicality. Precedent law is almost one sided as the Hon’ble Court has time and again held that the matrimony shall entitle the petitioner to all the benefits arising from the region. Averments made by counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted in the present situation as if the technicality of the circular dated 4.7.2016 is allowed, then

(18 of 19)

[2023/RJJD/002493]

[CW-8888/2020]

that shall cause serious prejudice to a lady depriving her of the benefit being extended to a particular region. The lady has also shifted to such permanent home on account of marriage and would be having the same handicap which all other residents of the area shall be suffering. Such privilege based on region cannot be discriminated on any count or any legal proposition whatsoever.

¶158

In light of the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioners as the residents of TSP area and accord them benefit of bonafide residence certificate and special bonafide residence certificate, which they had attained on account of her husband being a resident of the same TSP area. The respondents shall consider candidature of the petitioners for appointment as if she stands in merit relating to TSP in her own category and if she is otherwise eligible for appointment she shall be accorded the same within a period of two months from today”.

¶159

After giving a thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the present cases, except the instant S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10480/2020 (Divya Sharma Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2464/2021 (Kavita Vairagi Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.), owing to the limited controversy raised, are squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Smt. Twarita Gehlot (supra) , and thus, in the opinion of this Court the present petitions, except S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10480/2020 (Divya Sharma Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2464/2021 (Kavita Vairagi Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.), deserve to be allowed.

¶160

In view of the above, S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.8888/2020, 1946/2020, 7939/2020, 9304/2020,

(19 of 19)

[2023/RJJD/002493]

[CW-8888/2020]

9305/2020, 9650/2020, 10486/2020, 11199/2020, 13083/2020, 13286/2020, 13347/2020, 1413/2021, 16141/2021, 4409/2022 and 13083/2022 are allowed . Accordingly, the respondents are directed to treat the petitioners in the said petitions as the residents of TSP area and accord them benefit of the requisite TSP Certificate, which they had attained, upon being a resident of the TSP area, subsequent to their marriage. The respondents shall consider candidature of the petitioners for appointment on the post in question, as if they are residents of TSP Area (having the requisite TSP Certificate), and thereafter, if they are otherwise found meritorious and eligible for such appointment, they shall be accorded the same, within a period of two months from today .

¶165

However, S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.10480/2020 & 2464/2021 are dismissed , as the same are not covered by the judgment rendered in the case of Smt. Twarita Gehlot (supra) , since in the said first petition (No.10480/2020), the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized on 12.05.2019 i.e. after the concerned notification issued in the year 2018, while in the other petition (No.2464/2021), the date of marriage of the petitioner is not disclosed.

¶166

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶167

72-88-SKant/-

Sheetal Ameta v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheetal Ameta v. the 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

Hari Kishan Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Gudiya Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Purshotam Garg Vs Jodhpur Development Authority

Hira Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Ummed Singh Vs State and Anr.

Rakesh Alias Rekhraj Vs State of Rasthan