Allowed

Jahan Ara v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC3 Aug 2023CW/747/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur disposed of a writ petition challenging the non-appointment of a petitioner. The court held that an interim order did not impede appointment and directed the State to offer appointment within four weeks. A stay application was also disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the State Government to offer appointment to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of the order.

Jahan Ara Vs State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:24713]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 747/2019

¶4

Jahan Ara D/o Shri Nisar Ahmed, Aged About 44 Years, R/o P.no. 84, Dig Firoz Khan Colony, Chungi Chowki, Main Chopasani Road, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

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

¶8

The Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶9

The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶10

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶11

The District Establishment Committee, Through Its Chairman, Zila Parishad Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶12

The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Elementary Education, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Kailash Jangid
For Respondent(s)	: Utkarsh Singh for Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG

¶15

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶16

Order

¶17

03/08/2023

¶18

Mr. Utkarsh Singh, learned counsel for the respondent – State at the outset submitted that accepting the petitioner’s candidature, the State has taken an in-principle decision that the petitioner is entitled for appointment.

[2023:RJ-JD:24713]

[CW-747/2019]

(2 of 3)

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not given appointment because of the condition mentioned in the interim order.

¶23

Relevant part of the order dated 25.01.2019 reads thus:

¶24

“It is submitted that action of the respondents is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Smt. Raj Rani v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B.C.W.P. No. 10182/2012, decided on 10.10.2012, wherein, it was observed by the Court that the respondents were under obligation to provide relaxation of 5% to the reserved class categories including “Widow and Divorced” women.

¶25

Further submissions have been made that the similar view, as has been taken in the case of Smt. Raj Rani (supra), has been taken by the Division Bench in Bharti Upadhayay v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. : D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1122/2017, decided on 10.08.2018 and based on the said judgment in the case of Bharti Upadhayay (supra), the appeal, arising from the case of Smt. Raj Rani (supra) being State of Rajasthan & Ors. : D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1022/2013, has been rejected on 07.09.2018 and, therefore, the law as laid down by this Court is fully applicable to the case of the petitioner and there remains no doubt qua the qualification and eligibility of the petitioner, inasmuch as, she took admission in B.Ed. between 27.09.2007 to 31.08.2009 and obtained 41.83% marks and the stipulation in the advertisement for the said period is 45% marks and after taking into consideration the relaxation as provided, the petitioner is very much eligible.

¶26

In view of the submissions made, issue notice. Issue notice of stay application as well.

¶27

Notices when issued be given ‘dasti’ to counsel for the petitioner.

(3 of 3)

[2023:RJ-JD:24713]

[CW-747/2019]

In the meanwhile and until further orders, the respondents shall not cancel the candidature of the petitioner. The respondents are further directed to decide the issue, pertaining to petitioner’s candidature as observed hereinbefore, by the next date.

¶32

List the writ petition on 25.02.2019. .”

¶33

There is nothing in the interim order dated 25.01.2019, which impedes the respondents from issuing appointment order.

¶34

Be that as it may.

¶35

The present writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the State Government to offer appointment to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today.

¶36

Stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.

¶37

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶38

379-Mak/-

Jahan Ara v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jahan Ara 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

Praveen Godara Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajesh Vs State of Rajasthan

Surendra Kumar Jakhar Vs the State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Surendra Singh Ratnu Vs Kuldeep Ranka and Ors.

Ruchi Ojha Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Govind Kumar Vs the State of Rajasthan