Dismissed

Saroj Dhaka v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC6 Dec 2024CW/14348/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the writ petition covered by prior decisions recognizing pre-2011 Adeeb-Mahir qualifications. It directed respondents to consider the petitioner for appointment according to merit, subject to vacancy, without back wages.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be considered for appointment according to merit position with seniority benefits from the date the person below in merit list was appointed, except back wages.

Saroj Dhaka Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14348/2017

¶3

Saroj Dhaka Daughter Of Sh. Daulat Ram Dhaka, Wife of Sh. Suresh Kumar, by caste Jat, resident of Village Thalori, Post Inderpura, Tehsil and District Churu (Rajasthan).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The 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, Ajmer. Through its Secretary.

¶10

Chief Medical and Health Officer, Churu.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. C.R. Choudhary
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Karan Singh Rajpurohit,AAG

¶13

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶14

Order

¶15

01/04/2022

¶16

Counsels are at consensus that the present matter is covered by the decision passed by the Division Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Ms. Firdos Tarannum & Anr. (D.B. Special Appeal (W) No.534/2005), decided on 12.01.2022 and another order in Santosh Swami Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (D.B. Special Appeal (W) No.33/2021), decided on 08.03.2022.

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CW-14348/2017]

¶19

In the case of Santosh Swami (supra) the Division Bench observed as under: -

¶20

“Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the reason for upholding the results of the appellant in the matter of appointment pursuant to advertisement dated 18.06.2018 is on account of dispute with regard to recognition of qualification of Adeeb-Mahir. He would submit that in relation to earlier advertisement of the year 2000, involving identical issue of recognition of Adeeb-Mahir qualification, this Court vide order dated 12.01.2022 passed in D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 534/2005 has held that all such qualifications issued prior to recall in the year 2011, have to be recognized.

¶21

Therefore, it is contended that the issue raised by the appellant is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment.

¶22

Counsel for the State would submit that the order passed in SAW No. 534/2005 was related to only those cases where the result was withheld in the matter of selection/appointment pursuant to advertisement of 2000, while in the present case, withholding of result was pursuant to advertisement of 2018. He would further submit that in the aforesaid decision, relief has been granted by this Court directing the State authorities to consider case of the appellants therein for appointment for the post in question according to merit position. He would submit that though on legal issue this case is also convered, but appointments would be subject to availability of posts.

¶23

We find that the issue raised in this appeal is squarely covered by order dated 12.01.2022 passed in D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 534/2005 and as in the present case, admittedly, the qualification was obtained prior to withdrawal of recognition in the year 2011, the appellant, in this case, would also be entitled to similar relief as has been granted in the other case.

¶24

It goes without saying that the direction, which has been given in other case is also to be given in this case, would be subject to availability of the posts.

¶25

Accordingly this appeal is also disposed off with a direction to the State authorities to consider the appellant for appointment for the post in question according to merit position and if appointed, to grant all consequential benefits

¶26

(3 of 3)

¶27

[CW-14348/2017]

¶28

except back wages for the past period. In other words, the appellant would have the benefit of seniority for the past period from the date the person below the petitioner in merit list was appointed.”

¶29

In view of the submissions made, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of in light of and with similar directions as given in the case of Santosh Swami (supra).

¶30

All pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶31

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶32

42-AnilKC/-

Saroj Dhaka v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroj Dhaka v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

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

Mahi, Kadana and Anaya Visthapit P. Samiti Vs State of Rajsthan

Auto Center, Nokha Vs Sri Kant

Mirki Vs Sh. Dasrath Singh

Iqbal Mohammad Vs State of Rajasthan

Mrs. Rekha Sisodiya Vs Marwar Muslim Educational and Welfare Society

Mohammed Shareef Vs Marwar Muslim Educational and Welfare Society