Allowed

Kavita v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC28 May 2024CW/545/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed the petitioner's writ petition seeking appointment as a Grade-III Teacher. The petitioner was provisionally selected but missed document verification due to a pending death certificate. The Court directed the State to issue an appointment letter with notional benefits from the date of selection, subject to final document verification.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be issued appointment letter within 30 days with notional benefits including seniority; State to verify documents post-appointment.

Kavita Vs State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:24296]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 545/2019

¶4

Kavita D/o Shri Mahi Ram Dehru, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Vpo Jegla, Nokha, District Bikaner (Raj.).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

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

¶8

The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner. 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bikaner.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Firoda For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Chandak

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA Order

¶12

28/05/2024

¶13

By way of present petition, petitioner inter-alia, seeks appropriate direction to the respondents to conduct documents verification of the petitioner in Zila Parishad, Bikaner for the post of Teacher Grade-III, Level-II, Subject Social Science. 2. Briefly speaking, the relevant facts, as pleaded in the petition are that the respondents invited applications for recruitment on the post of Teacher Gr.III, Level-II including subject Social Science. The petitioner, being eligible, applied for the same in the OBC Widow Category. Vide order dated 03.09.2018, the petitioner was declared provisionally selected. She was allotted Bikaner district for documents verification, which was scheduled to be conducted on 08.09.2018. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner appeared before the concerned authorities but they could not conduct the same as there were some deficiencies in the

[2024:RJ-JD:24296]

[CW-545/2019]

(2of 5)

documents of the petitioner and she was told that her name will be included in the subsequent list. On 28.12.2018, the respondent No.2 reshuffled the result but the name of the petitioner was not included in the said list as she was not present for documents verification on 08.09.2018. The petitioner approached the concerned authorities by way of representation dated 31.12.2018, but no heed was paid. Hence, this petition.

¶18

In response to the aforesaid narrative in the petition, defence taken in the reply is that the petitioner herself remained absent during the documents verification and, therefore, on account of absence of petitioner and other candidates, reshuffled list was issued. The petitioner's name was not included due to her absence and not because of deficiency in the documents as is fortified from the subsequent office order dated 28.02.2019 (Annex.R/1).

¶19

In the above rival facts of the case, I have heard the contentions and shall proceed in the succeeding para to render my opinion by recording reasons thereof.

¶20

Long and short of the controversy herein is that while on one hand, respondents claim that the petitioner did not turn up during the documents verification round to establish that she is indeed a widow by producing death certificate of her husband, while on other hand, petitioner claims that she had appeared before the concerned officials at the time of documents verification round on 08.09.2018.

¶21

From the sequence of events and chronology, as pleaded and noted hereinabove, it appears that as on 08.09.2018, the petitioner did not have the requisite death certificate issued by the

[2024:RJ-JD:24296]

[CW-545/2019]

(3of 5)

competent authority even though her husband died on 05.04.2013. Though she reported for documents verification but was not allowed to participate in the absence of requisite documents. Confronted with the situation, the petitioner seems to have taken immediate steps to apply for the death certificate after 08.09.2018 and was supplied the said certificate on 26.09.2018. Until then, the result had not been declared and when the petitioner approached the authorities with the requisite certificate, she was confronted with the situation where the documents round had already culminated.

¶26

Left completely high and dry, she submitted her representation dated 20.12.2018. However, the result was declared, she found that her name did not figure in the list of successful candidates in the category of widow. She then immediately filed another representation stating that though she subsequently got the requisite certificate, but she was earlier marked absent in the documents verification round with the instructions that she should first get the certificate and submit the same and then it be considered before the final select list is prepared.

¶27

It is in these circumstances that she approached this Court by filing the instant petition wherein vide interim order dated 22.01.2019, following protection was granted to her:-

¶28

"In the meanwhile, the respondents shall keep one post of Teacher Gr.III (Social Science) Non-TSP in OBC non creamy layer Woman (Widow) category vacant."

¶29

Apropro, on Court query, learned counsel for the respondents submits that post has been though kept vacant but subsequently,

[2024:RJ-JD:24296]

[CW-545/2019]

(4of 5)

vide an office order dated 28.02.2019 (Annex.R/1), candidature of the petitioner was cancelled for not appearing in documents verification round. As far as subsequent order dated 28.02.2019 is concerned, the same cannot be taken legal cognizance of since it seems to have been passed as a counter blast to the interim protection granted by the Court to the petitioner. Once the post was directed to be kept vacant by interim order of this Court, needless to say that the cancellation of the candidature of the petitioner is of no legal consequence..

¶34

Adverting back to the claim of the petitioner, there is no dispute about genuineness of the death certificate or that the petitioner being a widow as on the date of submitting her application as the death of her husband took place way back on 05.04.2013. She is otherwise meritorious as per the result declared by the respondents is also not disputed. In the premise, the only reason of her not being considered was her not producing the death certificate of her husband at the time of documents verification round.

¶35

In the peculiar premise, I am of the view that respondents either ought to have given one opportunity to the petitioner to produce the certificate or in the alternative she ought to have been given benefit of the benevolent policy, which the State Government has promulgated for widows in order to provide them livelihood and could have offered her a provisional appointment on the condition that in case she does not produce the death certificate within certain period of her joining, her appointment shall be cancelled.

[2024:RJ-JD:24296]

[CW-545/2019]

(5of 5)

Needless to say that in case the certificate would have been found not genuine, the respondents could/would have had taken appropriate steps against such a candidate. That being not the case herein, I am of the view that the petitioner is deserving widow given that she is more meritorious than the other widows, with whom she competed. In the over-all premise, she deserves to be appointed on the post in question.

¶40

Resultantly, the petition is allowed. The order dated 28.02.2019 (Annex.R/1) is set aside though there is no formal prayer in the writ petition, but since I have recorded that said office order could not have been passed after the interim order of this Court.

¶41

The petitioner be issued appointment letter within a period of 30 days of her approaching the respondents with a web print of the instant order.

¶42

It is made clear that she shall not be allowed any financial benefits for the period she did not work on the principle of "no work-no pay". However, all other notional benefits including seniority etc. shall be granted to the petitioner in parity with her counterparts with whom she competed in the same selection.

¶43

In the parting, at the request of learned counsel for the respondents, which I believe is fair, the respondents are given liberty to verify all the requisite documents of the petitioner before issuing her appointment letter and, in case, anything is found deficient, she shall be given opportunity to rectify the same.

¶44

(ARUN MONGA),J

¶45

42-skm/-

¶46

Whether fit to be reported : Yes / No

Kavita v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kavita 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Antima Kumari Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan

Bharat Raj Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan

Babulal Meghwal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Hariom Vs the State of Rajasthan

Heera Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Kailash Dan Vs State of Raj. and Ors.