Dismissed

Mamta Sharma W/O Shri Ramavtar Sharma v. Rajasthan State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission

Rajasthan HC1 Apr 2025SAW/100/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mamta Sharma appealed against dismissal of her writ petition. The High Court upheld the lower court's decision, holding that the appellant failed to secure minimum qualifying marks, negating reservation eligibility, relying on Supreme Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

The appeal challenging the non-selection was dismissed.

Mamta Sharma W/O Shri Ramavtar Sharma Vs Rajasthan… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:14679-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 100/2024

¶4

¶5

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2579/2012

¶6

Mamta Sharma W/o Shri Ramavtar Sharma, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Bidoli Via Khood, Tehsil And District Sikar (Raj.)

¶7

----Appellant

¶8

		Versus
1.	Rajasthan State Commission, Jaipur T	Consumer Dispute hrough Its Registrar.	Redressal
2.	The Principal Secreta Of Personnel, Govt.	ry To The Government, Of Rajasthan, Govt.	Department Secretariat,
	Jaipur.
3.	President, Class Iv	Employee Recruitment	Committee,
	Rajasthan State	Consumer Disputes	Redressal
	Commission, Jaipur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Appellant : Mr. Nishant Sharma Advocate.

¶11

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

¶12

Order

¶13

01/04/2025

¶14

Though order passed by the learned Single Judge is assailed mainly on the ground that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay, in our opinion, even on merits, no case is made out to grant any relief.

¶15

Challenge to non-selection of the appellant in the category by providing women reservation was repelled by the respondents on the categoric averment made in the reply that as the appellant

¶16

[SAW-100/2024]

¶17

[2025:RJ-JP:14679-DB]

¶18

(2 of 2)

¶19

failed to secure minimum qualifying marks, she could not be provided women reservation. In the absence of there being any traversal of such categoric averment made in the return, no case for interference is made out. It is trite law that benefit of reservation can be limited subject to appropriate levels of performance as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Preeti Srivastava & Another Vs. State of M.P. & Others,

¶20

(1999) 7 SCC 120 .

¶21