The Court disposed of these connected writ petitions concerning Pre Primary Education Teacher recruitment based on the directions laid down in the coordinated judgment of Rajkumar vs. State of Rajasthan, holding the controversy set at rest.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14596/2019
(2 of 6)
[CW-14596/2019]
R/o 273-D, Sindhi Colony, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
(3 of 6)
[CW-14596/2019]
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14579/2020
Darshna D/o Shri Kaboolram, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Kajlan, Tehsil Buhana, Distt. Jhunjhunu-333034.
----Petitioner
Versus
(4 of 6)
[CW-14596/2019]
Development Services, 2, Jal Path, Gnadhi Nagar, Jaipur.
----Respondents
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
28/08/2024
[CW-14596/2019]
(5 of 6)
by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of Rajkumar vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12182/2019) . Counsel submits that these writ petitions be disposed of in the light of similar directions as issued in the case of Rajkumar (Supra).
“This Court also observes that the petitioners have submitted applications for seeking permission for allowing their appearance in the Pre Primary Education Teacher Direct Recruitment Examination-2018 and then appeared in the written examination, whereafter on 31.07.2019, the petitioners have secured their respective roll numbers in the provisional list and were called for documents verification.
This Court also observes that the petitioners have made due compliance of the aforementioned condition No.14 of the advertisement in question. The petitioner clearly fell under the cut off marks criteria and were accordingly, called for documents verification by the respondents, and therefore, on this count also, the impugned action of the respondents in not issuing the requisite NOC in favour of the petitioners is not justified in law.
This Court further observes that in the case of other similarly situated persons, the respondents allowed them to participate in the recruitment process of the year 2013 (as reflected in Annexure-3 of the lead petition), whereas, the same treatment has not been meted out to the present petitioners, which is also not permissible in law.
Thus on a consideration of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and in light of the aforesaid observations, the present petitions are allowed and while quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 08.01.2019, the respondent authorities are directed to issue the requisite NOC to the petitioners for further process in the recruitment in question, and the said NOC upon being issued shall be duly
(6 of 6)
[CW-14596/2019]
considered by the concerned respondent authorities, in pursuance of the advertisement in question. All pending applications also stand disposed of.”
(Supra).
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
Ashu/241-243
1 issue framed by the court
Whether these writ petitions should be disposed of by following the similar directions issued in the case of Rajkumar vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rajkumar vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Explained¶74
Rajkumar vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12182/2019)
Anuradha Sharma and others
Rajasthan Staff Selection Board
State Of Rajasthan
Deputy Director (Administration), Integrated Child Development Services
Anoop Kumar Dhand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
