Disposed

Sumitra Gehlot v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Mar 2023CW/2201/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition regarding employment eligibility. Relying on previous precedents, the court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's first and second year mark-sheets. The petition was disposed of in light of an earlier judgment in Manju Dhundawat, subject to the availability of vacancies and further eligibility requirements.

What did the court decide?

The court disposed of the present writ petition on the same terms as the earlier order in Manju Dhundawat and Hari Ram, directing consideration of the petitioner's first and second year mark-sheets, s

Sumitra Gehlot Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

(1 of 5) [CW-2201/2023]

¶2

[2023/RJJD/006155]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2201/2023

¶5

Sumitra Gehlot D/o Shri Jaina Ram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Solankiyo Ki Dhani, Bada Kotecha, Maloonga, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

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

¶9

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jodhpur, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Ms. Sumitra Gehlot (present in person)
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG a/w
	Mr. Kunal Upadhyay

¶12

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶13

Order

¶14

02/03/2023

¶15

The lawyers are abstaining from the work.

¶16

Mr. Sunil Beniwal, learned Additional Advocate General fairly submits that controversy involved in the present petition is covered by the judgment passed by this Court in Manju Dhundawat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16918/2022) , decided on 01.12.2022, the order reads as follows:-

¶17

“This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the list dated 31.10.2022 (Annex.P/ 5), whereby, though the petitioner has marks higher

(2 of 5)

[2023/RJJD/006155]

[CW-2201/2023]

than the cut-off, her name has not been reflected in the said list.

¶22

In response to the petition it has been indicated that the petitioner has not produced the mark-sheet of first year graduation where she had studied the computer application subject and only the final year mark-sheet was produced and, therefore, for lack of requisite computer qualification, she was held ineligible.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to order in Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16316/2022, decided on 10.11.2022, wherein, in similar circumstances the Court directed the respondents to take into consideration the mark-sheets of first year & second year of graduation by the petitioner therein and prayed that the petitioner may be accorded similar indulgence.

¶24

Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that pursuant to the document verification, all the posts have been filled-up and, therefore, on that count also, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

¶25

An additional affidavit has been filed by the petitioner inter alia indicating that out of 442 posts, 408 persons have been accorded appointment and for 28 persons, the District Establishment Committee is yet to take decision and, therefore, those 28 posts are lying vacant.

¶26

Further submissions have been made that one Vijay Khoja was accorded appointment at Sr. No.47, however, he has already joined at Zila Parishad, Nagaur and, therefore, even the said post is also vacant.

¶27

Learned counsel for the respondents attempted to make submissions that as far as the said post of

(3 of 5)

[2023/RJJD/006155]

[CW-2201/2023]

Vijay Khoja is concerned, the same would have to be taken into consideration in next recruitment and cannot be filled-up now at this stage.

¶32

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶33

In the case of Hari Ram (supra), this Court inter alia came to the following conclusion:-

¶34

“I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶35

The facts are not in dispute, wherein on account of petitioner failing to produce the mark-sheets of graduation for all the three years and producing marksheet of the final year only, wherein subject-computer application was not reflected, his candidature has been rejected, holding him ineligible. The material now produced alongwith the writ petition i.e. mark-sheets of first year and second year, reflect that the petitioner has studied subjectcomputer application in first year, which has been held as sufficient in the case of Heera Lal Jat (supra).

¶36

Further, the claim made that after document verification, the petitioner has produced the marksheets of first year and second year shows that petitioner had not produced the same at the time of document verification.

¶37

In view of the circumstances, wherein though rejection of the petitioner’s candidature by the respondents for lack of mark-sheet indicating as having studied subject-computer application, cannot be faulted, however, in the circumstances of the case, wherein the petitioner only for lack of knowledge regarding producing all the mark-sheets is being deprived of getting appointment though he falls in merit, requires indulgence and, therefore, the respondents are directed to take into consideration the mark-sheets of first year and second year of graduation produced by the petitioner, which shall now be reproduced by

(4 of 5)

[2023/RJJD/006155]

[CW-2201/2023]

the petitioner with the respondents by tomorrow i.e. 11.11.2022.

¶42

On finding the said mark-sheets in order and in case, the petitioner is otherwise eligible and falls in merit, the respondents would do the needful i.e. recommend the name of the petitioner for appointment altering the list already send to the competent authority for the purpose. (4 of 4) [CW-16918/2022] With the above directions, the petition stands disposed of.”

¶43

The issue raised in the present writ petition apparently is covered by order in the case of Hari Ram (supra).

¶44

So far as the plea regarding no post being vacant is concerned, it is not denied that so far awaiting instructions from the State Government regarding 28 seats, the said seats have not been filled-up by the respondents and, therefore, it cannot be said that all the posts have been filled-up by the respondents.

¶45

However, safeguarding the interest of those whose names appear in the select list, who have not been accorded appointment so far, it is deemed appropriate and therefore directed that, in case, the respondents accord appointments and any of the said 28 candidates in petitioner’s category is found ineligible, the case of the petitioner may be considered by the respondents based on her mark-sheets for the first year and second year graduation and if she is otherwise found eligible and is in merit, accord her appointment pursuant to the exercise undertaken by the respondents by Circular dated 7.9.2022.

¶46

With the above observations and directions, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of. "

¶47

In light of the aforequoted order, the present writ petition is disposed of on the same terms. However, it is made clear that the

[2023/RJJD/006155]

[CW-2201/2023]

(5 of 5)

aforequoted order shall operate in favour of the petitioner also subject to availability of the vacancy and if she is otherwise found eligible and meritorious.

¶52

All pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶53

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶54

34-Sudheer/-

Sumitra Gehlot v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumitra Gehlot 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

Hemlata Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan

Prithvi Raj Ratnoo Vs the State of Rajasthan

Bahadur Singh Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Laxmi Parihar Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhagat Ram Meena Vs State of Rajasthan