Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Suresh Chand Jorwal vs State Of Raj & Ors on 10 January, 2011
Author: Ajay Rastogi
Bench: Ajay Rastogi
In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench **
Civil Writ Petition No.4882/2010 Kaushal Kr. Sharma & Ors Versus State & Ors.
(alongwith cognate cases as per Schedule appended) Date of Order ::: 10 /01/2011 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi For Petitioners :
Sarva Shri R.N. Mathur, Virendra Dangi, SK Gupta, Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, Ashok Gaur, Hanuman Choudhary, SC Gupta, Bhanwar Bagri, Virendra Lodha, Saransh Saini, Anoop Dhand, JK Yogi, PP Singh, Sandeep Garssa, Bharat Saini, Ankur Rastogi, DS Bagadia, D. Barala, Naveen Dhuwan, MS Gurjar, Vinod Gupta, MI Beg, Manoj S.Raghav, Munesh Bhardwaj, Mahendra Sharma, Vijay Pathak, SK Singodiya, AS Shekhawat, Amardeep Atwal, RB Sharma, Rajvir Sharma, VD Ghathala, Hemant Gajraj, Vijay Yadav, Praveen Sharma,, Rajendra Yadav, Vikas Ganan, Rahul Kamwar, Anil Poonia, SR Samota, RK Gautam, Sudarshan Laddha, Santosh Srivastava, Timan Singh, Dileep Sinsinwar, Narendra Saini, Sanju Saini, Harsh Saini, Rajesh Godwal, Mukesh Poonia, SS Shekhawat, RP Saini, KS Faujdar, Ashwini Jaiman, Kailash Tailor, MS Gothwal, Sanjay Mehla, Ravi S. Sharma, Darshan Shree, Rajesh Moondia, RP Dadhich, Prahlad Sharma, Manoj Pareek, Tarun Jain, KN Sharma, Sunil Kr. Jain, Sanjay Kr.Sharma, RK Goyal, MI Abbasi, GL Sharma & Pradeep Mathur & Mrs Archana Mantri.
For Respondents :
Mr. SN Kumawat, Addl. Adv. Gen. for State and RPSC Mr. Ganesh Meena (Govt. Counsel).
Sarva Shri Rajendra Soni, V.K. Sharma for AK Sharma, Raghunandan Sharma, for private respondents Since common controversy has been raised in a bunch of instant petitions, hence heard together at joint request and they are being finally disposed of at admission stage by common order.
Main controversy raised herein for consideration is as to whether qualification of "Varishtha Upadhayay" is one of essential academic qualifications to be possessed by the applicant for being considered for the post of Teacher Gr.III (Sanskrit) Upper Primary Section, for which selection was held by Rajasthan Public Service Commission ("PSC").
Posts of Teacher Gr.III (Sanskrit/ General) are included in the Schedule appended to Rajasthan Sanskrit Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 ("Rules, 1978") and the amendment was made under proviso to Art.309 of the Constitution vide notification dt. 10/06/2008 revising the qualification for the post of Teacher Gr.II & Teacher Gr.III Sanskrit/General and Schedule-II was appended laying down the procedure & syllabus for holding competitive examination for the posts of Teacher Gr.II & Gr.III (Sanskrit/General); details whereof will be referred to at a later stage.
However, it appears that after having taken note of the judgment of this Court (DB) in Kailash Chandra Harijan Vs. State (2006(1) RLR 665) wherein it was held that those who were holders of B.Ed. or other equivalent qualification cannot be treated at par with BSTC and are not eligible for Primary Section, further amendment was made vide notification dt.22/08/2008 and the post of Teacher Gr.III (Sanskrit) was bifurcated into two levels i.e. Primary & Upper Primary School Section and the same break up is made for Teacher Gr.III (General).
Respondent-PSC issued an advertisement on 20/06/2008 inviting applications for the posts of Sanskrit & General Teacher Gr.III under Rules, 1978. However, after issuance of amendment notification dt.22/08/2008 (supra) when the post of Sanskrit Teacher Gr.III was bifurcated into Primary & Upper Primary Section, corrigendum was issued by respondent-PSC on 02/09/2008 making corresponding correction in original advertisement dt. 20/06/2008 and the post of Teachers (Sanskrit/ General) was bifurcated into two separate categories placed at serial No.21 as Teacher Gr.III (Sanskrit-Primary Section) and S.No.24 was notified as Teacher Gr.III 'Sanskrit' (Upper Primary School Section) and corrigendum was simultaneously made for the post of Teacher Gr.III (General) & S.No.22 was notified for Teacher Gr.III (Primary School) and S.No.25 as Teacher Gr.III (Upper Primary School Section).
All the writ petitioners indisputably are not holding qualification of "Varishtha Upadhayay" or equivalent traditional Sanskrit Examination with Sanskrit Medium, being one of essential academic qualifications for the post of Teacher Gr.III (Sanskrit) for Upper Primary Middle School Section, as per amendment notification dt.22/08/2008. However, almost all of them, as alleged, are either holders of Senior Secondary with Sanskrit as one of optional subjects or holding Sanskrit as optional subject at Under Graduate level or few of them did Master of Arts in Sanskrit also with Shiksha Shastri or equivalent course i.e. B.Ed. (Sanskrit).
Although the writ petitioners appeared in written examination held by respondent PSC for the post of Teacher Gr.III (Sanskrit) and respondent-PSC on declaration of result of the written examination sent them intimation of being provisionally selected but later on their candidature was rejected by respondent-PSC on the premise of not holding essential academic qualification of Varishtha Upadhayay in terms of Rules, 1978; which has been assailed by writ petitioners herein.
The controversy raised herein confines to the eligibility examined by respondent-PSC in regard to the post of Teacher Gr.III (Sanskrit) (Upper Primary School Section) indicated at S.No.24 in corrigendum dt. 02/09/2008 issued by respondent-PSC.
Main thrust of submissions of Counsel for the petitioners is that they all are Graduates with Shiksha Shastri/B.Ed (Sanskrit) and having Sanskrit as one of optional subjects at Senior Secondary/Under-Graduate level and such candidates possessing Sanskrit subject at all levels and few of them being post graduate in Sanskrit, are certainly eligible in terms of amendment notification dt.22/08/2008 and rejection of their candidature by respondent-PSC on the premise of not holding qualification of "Varishtha Upadhayay" is wholly arbitrary and their action is in violation of Art.14 of the Constitution.
Counsel for petitioners further submits that even in terms of amendment notification dt.22/08/2008 Graduate with Shiksha Shastri or its equivalent (B.Ed.) is also an alternative qualification for the post of Teacher Gr.III (Sanskrit) (Upper Primary School Section) which all the petitioners are holding; as such the decision of respondent-PSC in holding "Varishtha Upadhayay" as essential academic qualification is contrary to amendment notification dt.22/08/2008; and it has been contended that they should be held as eligible and respondent-PSC may be directed to consider them for appointment as per their placement in the order of merit for the post of Teacher Gr.III (Sanskrit) (Upper Primary School Section).
Counsel for petitioners further jointly submit that the petitioners on having provisionally appeared in written examination & selected, cannot be later on held to be ineligible; more so while holding higher qualification than what has been prescribed under notification dt.22/08/2008; rejection of their candidature by respondent-PSC on the premise of not holding academic qualification of Varishtha Upadhayay is without application of mind and deserves to be set aside.
Respondents have filed reply to the writ petition and it has been jointly submitted that under amendment notification dt.22/08/2008 "Varishtha Upadhayay" is one of essential academic qualifications and other alternate qualifications provided in sub-clause (ii) has to be possessed alongwith academic qualification of "Varishtha Upadhayay", which alone will consider the applicant as eligible for the post of Teacher Gr.III (Sanskrit) (Upper Primary School Section).
It has been further contended by Counsel for respondents that the petitioners are not holding academic qualification of "Varishtha Upadhayay" or equivalent qualification but are holders of equivalent qualification which makes them eligible for the post of Teacher Gr.III (General) (Upper Primary Middle School Section); and unless the applicant holds the qualification of Sanskrit stream as reflected to under the Rules, 1978, absence whereof cannot hold them for being considered as eligible to the post of Teacher Gr.III (Sanskrit) and no error has been committed by respondents in taking decision while holding for the post of Teacher Gr. III (Sanskrit) Upper Primary (Middle School Section) that the applicant is supposed to possess qualification of "Varishtha Upadhayay" as one of basic academic qualifications and it is in conformity with the amendment made vide notification dt. 22/08/2008. In support, Government Counsel relied upon the decision of Division Bench of this Court in Prem Narain Vs. State (Special Appeal (Writ)-920/1996 & (10) cognate appeals decided on 13/01/1997).
This Court has considered rival contentions advanced at the Bar and with their assistance, examined the material on record. Indisputably either of petitioners is not holding essential academic qualification of "Varishtha Upadhayay" or any other equivalent traditional Sanskrit examination with Sanskrit medium. At the same time, they were permitted to appear & participate in written examination held pursuant to advertisement dt.20/06/2008 & corrigendum dt.02/09/2008 for the post of Teacher Gr.III (Primary/Upper Primary Middle School); and upon declaring result of written examination (supra), petitioners were informed of their provisional selection but their candidature was later on rejected by respondent-PSC on the premise of not holding essential academic qualification of "Varishtha Upadhayay" in terms of Rules, 1978.
The Department of Sanskrit Education on its Website has granted equivalence of Sanskrit Degrees, copy whereof being placed on record reads ad infra:-
Sanskrit Degrees Equivalent To Praveshika Secondary Varshitha Upadhyaya Senior Secondary Shastri Graduate Acharya Post Graduate Shiksha Shastri B.Ed.
Post of Teacher Gr.III is included in the Schedule appended to the Rules, 1978. However, Syllabus for holding competitive examination under the Schedule & Scheme of Rules, 1978 was amended by State Government in exercise of powers under proviso to Art.309 of the Constitution vide notification dt.10/06/2008; however, no breakup was made under it in regard to primary/upper primary School (middle school section). At the same time, Schedule-II was inserted laying down Syllabus for holding competitive examination for the post of Teachers Gr.II/Gr.III (Sanskrit) and for other general posts, as well. However, Schedule-I under Rules, 1978 was further amended vide notification dt. 22/08/2008 and the posts of Teacher Gr.III (Sanskrit/General) were bifurcated into Two levels viz. (i) Primary & (ii) Upper Primary (Middle School Section). It will be appropriate to refer amendment notification dt.22/08/2008 being core issued raised herein ad infra:
"6(a). Teacher Grade-III (Sanskrit) -
100% by direct recruitment through RPSC Level (i) Primary
(i) Varishtha Upadhyaya or equivalent traditional Sanskrit examination with Sanskrit medium, and
(ii) Diploma or Certificate in Basic Teachers Training of duration of not less then two years OR Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.) Level (ii) Upper Primary (Middle School Section)
(i) Varishtha Upadhayaya Or equivalent traditional Sanskrit examination with Sanskrit medium, and
(ii) Diploma or Certificate in Basic Teachers Training of duration of not less than two years. Or Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.El.B.Ed.). Or Graduate with Shiksha Shastri Or its equivalent.
"6 (b). Teacher Grade-III (General) -
100% by direct recruitment through RPSC Level (i) Primary
(i) Senior Secondary School Certificate Or intermediate Or its equivalent examination, and
(ii) Diploma or Certificate in Basic Teachers Training of duration of not less than two years. OR Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.) Level (ii) Upper Primary (Middle School Section)
(i) Senior Secondary School Certificate Or intermediate Or its equivalent examination, and
(ii) Diploma or Certificate in Basic Teachers Training of duration of not less than two years. Or Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.El.B.Ed.). Or Graduate with Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) Or its equivalent.
It clearly emerges from the notification dt.22/08/2008 that qualifications for the posts of Teachers Gr.III (Sanskrit) at levels (i) Primary & (ii) Upper Primary have been separately categorized and bifurcated into two different Clauses (i) & (ii). Clause (i) relates to minimum academic qualification of "Varishtha Upadhayay" or equivalent traditional Sanskrit examination with Sanskrit medium while Clause (ii) relates to training & diploma or certificate in basic teachers training of a duration of not less than two years; or Bachelor of Elementary Education or Graduate with Shiksha Shastri Or its equivalent. The words "and" & "Or" referred to by the rule making authority between Cls.(i) & (ii) is certainly of great significance. It is relevant to quote dictionary meaning of wordS 'and' & 'or' here.
As per Mitra's Legal & Commercial Dictionary (5th Edn by A.N.Saha), the words And & Or mean-
And.- The word 'and' is generally used in cumulative sense, requiring fulfillment of all the conditions that it joins together and herein it is the antithesis of 'or'. But the context may indicate that the word 'and' should be interpreted in a disjunctive sense.
Or.- Normally 'or' must be given disjunctive meaning and should not be read to give it a conjunctive sense. In certain extra ordinary context it can be read as 'and'. In ordinary usage, and is conjunctive and 'or' is disjunctive. But to carry on the intention of legislature it may be necessary to read 'and' in place of the conjunction 'or' and vice versa.
As per Black's Law Dictionary [6th Edition) (Centennial Edn (1891-1991)], words And & Or mean-
"And.- A conjunction connecting words or phrases expressing the idea that the latter is to be added to or taken along with the first. Added to; together with; joined with; as well as; including. Sometimes construed as Or.
"Or.- A disjunctive particle used to express an alternative or to give a choice of one among two or more things. It is also used to clarify what has already been said, and in such cases, means in other words, 'to-wit, or that is to say. The word or is to be used as a function word to indicate an alternative between different or unlike things.
In some usages, the word or creates a multiple rather than an alternative obligation; where necessary in interpreting an instrument, or may be construed to mean and'."
From a bare perusal of dictionary meaning, Word 'and' is always used in conjunctive sense requiring fulfillment of all the conditions which joins it together and it is an antithesis of word 'or' and its conjunctive sense is used to conjoin words, clauses, or sentences, expressing the relation of addition or connection, and signifying that something is to follow in addition to the word 'and' and 'or' having its own effect as taken note of by Rule making authority; and is a separate disjunctive particle used to express an alternative or to give a choice of one among two or more things.
As per Rule of interpretation, the intention of Rule making authority is primarily to be gathered from the language used, meaning thereby an attention should be paid to what has been said and what has not been said; and consequently, construction requiring its support addition or substitution of words or resulting in rejection of words as meaningless is always to be avoided; and as per rule of liberal constructions, the words of statute are to be understood in natural sense unless it leads to some absurdity or there is something in the context or in the object of statue to suggest the contrary.
It has been consistently held by Apex Court that the word 'or' is normally disjunctive and the word 'and' is normally conjunctive which conjuncts the words added thereto to give effect to the manifest intention of the legislature.
In the instant case, Rule making authority in its amendment notification dt. 22/08/2008 clearly made disjunction in regard to academic qualification & the training being essential which the applicant is supposed to possess, under Cls.(i) & (ii) in the Schedule appended to the Rules, 1978 as a qualification of Teacher Gr.III at levels (i) Primary & (ii) Upper Primary Middle School. Minimum academic qualification as per Cl.(i) is "Varishtha Upadhayaya" or equivalent traditional Sanskrit Examination with Sanskrit medium and in addition, under Cl.(ii), Diploma /certificate in Basic Teachers Training or Graduation with Shiksha Shastri or its equivalent is also required which one must possess for consideration for the post of Teacher Gr.III (Sanskrit).
However, three alternatives are provided for an incumbent applying for the post of Teacher Gr.III (Sanskrit) at Primary/ Upper Primary (Middle School Section) in regard to the training. Thus, in considered opinion of this Court, for the post of Teacher Gr.III (Sanskrit) at primary and Upper Primary (Middle School Section) levels, "Varishtha Upadhayay" or equivalent traditional Sanskrit examination with Sanskrit medium is one of essential academic qualification which one is supposed to possess alongwith three alternatives (supra) as provided under Cl.(ii) while holding an incumbent eligible.
From the syllabus of the year 2008-09 placed on record it is manifest that all the subjects being taught to the students at Primary and Upper primary Middle School levels are in Sanskrit Education/language and more comprehensive of Sanskrit subject with Sanskrit medium. At the same time, those who are teaching in General stream are holding qualification as being taught by Teachers Gr.III (General) duly appointed by Department of Education; it clearly reflects that the intention of Rule making authority was to make a visible distinction in the qualification required & prescribed for the post of Teacher Gr.III (Sanskrit)/(General).
What has been observed by the Court certainly fulfills the object laid down by the Rule making authority as per amendment notification dt.22/08/2008. It has also been brought to the notice that a candidate is given training in Sanskrit language/medium right from the beginning till the end of his career meaning thereby candidates are totally Sanskrit language oriented and if the candidate is not holding minimum academic qualification of "Varishtha Upadhyaya" being Sanskrit language oriented, will not be in a position to discharge his duties in proper and efficient manner as required by Rule making authority.
Before the amendment (supra) was made by Rule making authority while filling up posts of Teacher Gr.III (Sanskrit), there was no bifurcation of academic qualification of Sanskrit & General Teacher. Before initiating process of recruitment to fill posts of Teacher Gr.III, State Government issued administrative circular dt.18/07/1992 prescribing Praveshika or its equivalent as minimum academic qualification. Praveshika is equivalent to "Secondary School Education". But, since there was no distinction under the Scheme of Rules prior to amendment impugned, the controversy was raised as to whether the State Government is competent to prescribe qualification by issuance of administrative circular in filling up posts of Teacher Gr.III (Sanskrit) which the Rules do not postulate. The Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dt. 13/01/1997 in Prem Narayan Vs. State (supra) taking note of the submissions made, observed that since the State Government intended to fill up posts of Sanskrit Teacher; and the Rules did not make proper distinction in regard to qualification required for Sanskrit/General teacher, that can always be supplemented by issuing circular and upholding the action of the State Government, the Court held that pursuant to administrative circular dt.18/07/1992, if the applicant is not holding minimum academic qualification of Praveshika or its equivalent, basically relating to Sanskrit stream, he has rightly not been held to be eligible for the post of Sanskrit Teacher.
At the same time, it was further observed that it would be appropriate to amend the Rules as early as possible to avoid such types of litigations & controversy in future. It appears that taking note of observations made by Division Bench while disposing of Special appeals (Writ) No.920/1996 (Prem Narain Vs. State) vide judgment dt.13/01/1997 (supra), the respondents issued amendment notifications dt.10/06/2008 & 22/08/2008 respectively.
Submission made by Counsel for petitioners if taken to its logical conclusion then applicants holding Graduate degree with Sanskrit as Optional subject or equivalent viz. B.Ed. in Sanskrit/Shiksha Shastri will become eligible for the post of Teacher Gr.III (Sanskrit/General) Upper Primary Middle section, since graduation is in both the streams (Sanskrit/Genrral) & Bachelor of Education is equivalent to Siksha Sastri as such eligibility could be claimed by holders of Shiksha Shastri or B.Ed (Sanskrit) but that was never the intention of Rule making authority; and the words "and" & "Or" referred to by Rule making authority while making distinction between Clause (i) & (ii) are conjunctive and has to be given its full effect and in addition to Cl.(i), those having held other alternative qualifications referred to in Cl.(ii), alone could be held eligible for the post of Teacher Gr.III (Sanskrit) (Upper Primary Middle School Section) under the Scheme of Rules, 1978.
As regards submission made by Counsel for petitioners in regard to equivalence of Sanskrit Degree awarded by Directorate of Sanskrit Education, suffice it to say that it is only for the purpose of qualification of Sanskrit Education being at par with General qualification possessed by incumbent and that can certainly be taken note of for the Teacher Gr.III (General) Upper Primary Middle School Section and not for Teacher Gr.III (Sanskrit) where minimum academic qualification required is "Varishtha Upadhyaya" or equivalent traditional Sanskrit Examination which indisputably is not being possessed by either of petitioners herein.
Further submission made on behalf of petitioners that while holding admission to Shiksha Shastri course, 75% admissions are made from "Varishttha Upadhyaya" and 25% from holders of Senior Secondary with Sanskrit as optional subject, which also makes them eligible for the post of Teacher Gr.III (Sanskrit) is also of no substance for the reason that it has been provided by State Government only to facilitate the incumbent holding training of Shiksha Shastri but that in no manner makes the applicant eligible for the post of Teacher Gr.III (Sanskrit) (Upper Primary Middle School Section) in terms of amendment notification dt.22/08/2008.
Last submission made on behalf of petitioners that those having appeared and provisionally selected cannot be held to be ineligible and holding higher qualification cannot deprive them from consideration, is also of no substance for the reason that merely having participated in process of selection and provisionally selected will not confer an indefeasible right in their favour and even if having possessed higher qualification as alleged, will not make them eligible unless they fulfill condition of eligibility laid down by Rule making authority in terms of amendment notification dt. 22/08/2008 under the Scheme of Rules, 1978; in absence whereof, no rights could have conferred upon the petitioners despite being provisionally selected pursuant to impugned advertisement.
Some of writ petitions have been filed which are also included in the present schedule seeking directions from this Court that the respondents shall consider only such applicants who are holding qualification of Varishttha Upadhyaya which is one of the essential qualifications for being considered for the post of Teacher Gr.III (Sanskrit) (Upper Primary Middle School Section) and in view of controversy being examined by this Court, such writ petitions are accordingly disposed of in the light of what has been observed in the judgment supra.
Consequently, all other writ petitions alongwith stay petitions as per Schedule appended are without substance and accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Ajay Rastogi), J.
K.Khatri/p22/ 4882CW2010RsrJanVrsith-Snskr(151).doc Schedule to Judgment dt.10/01/2011 in CWP-4882/2010 & Cognate cases *** S.No. CWP/Stay Pet.Nos. / Name of Petitioners/ Versus 1.4882/2010 (nil) Kaushal Kumar Sharma & Ors Versus State & Ors
2. 5080/2010 (nil) Anil Kumar & Ors Versus State & Ors
3. 16094/2009 (nil) Punam Verma Versus State & Ors
4. 16224/2009 (nil) Ganga Shankar Meena & Ors Versus State & Ors
5. 472/2010 (nil) Ram Raj Meena Versus State & Ors
6. 563/2010 (nil) Pramod Kumar Meena Versus State & Ors
7. 723/2010 (nil) Nand Lal Meena Versus State & Ors
8. 852/2010 (nil) Suman Dhaka Versus RPSC Ajmer & Ors
9. 1808/2010 (nil) Hari Narayan Meena Versus State & Ors
10. 4339/2010 (nil) Pooran Chand Saini Versus State & Anr
11. 4630/2010 (nil) Nand Bhanwar Choudhary & Anr Versus State & Ors
12. 4641/2010 (nil) Ashok Kumar Meena & Ors Versus State & Ors
13. 4673/2010 (nil) Tiloka Ram Dudi Versus State & Ors
14. 4701/2010 (nil) Pawan Kumar & Ors Versus State & Ors
15. 4941/2010 (nil) Seema Jatav Versus State & Ors
16. 5007/2010 (nil) Veena Kumari Versus State & Ors
17. 5008/2010 (nil) Manish Dagur Versus State & Ors
18. 5009/2010 (nil) Rashmi Faujdar Versus State & Ors
19. 5030/2010 (nil) Vinita Rani Versus State & Ors
20. 5038/2010 (nil) Dalvir Singh Versus State & Ors
21. 5100/2010 (nil) Urmila Rathu Versus State & Ors
22. 5144/2010 (nil) Smt. Krishna Sharma Versus State & Anr
23. 5163/2010 (nil) Tulsi Ram Versus State & Ors
24. 5185/2010 (nil) Naval Kishore Versus State & Ors
25. 5197/2010 (nil) Durga Lal Dhaker Versus State & Ors
26. 5202/2010 (nil) Dungar Singh Versus State & Ors
27. 5204/2010 (nil) Roop Narain Gupta & Ors Versus State & Ors
28. 5247/2010 (nil) Govind Singh Jatav & Anr Versus State & Ors
29. 5280/2010 (nil) Hem Raj Malav & Ors Versus State & Ors
30. 5286/2010 (nil) Pushpa Meena & Ors Versus State & Ors
31. 5390/2010 (nil) Ms. Lalita Verma & Ors Versus State & Ors
32. 5397/2010 (nil) Krishan Kumar & Ors Versus State & Ors
33. 5402/2010 (nil) Snehlata Versus State & Ors
34. 5412/2010 (nil) Saroj Bala Versus State & Ors
35. 5419/2010 (nil) Smt. Usha Rani Sharma Versus Secy. to Govt. & Ors
36. 5420/2010 (nil) Shyam Lal Meena Versus Secy. to Govt. & Ors.
37. 5421/2010 (nil) Smt. Rukmani Meena Versus Secy. to Govt. & Ors.
38. 5435/2010 (nil) Shashi Kant Gupta & Anr Versus State & Ors
39. 5466/2010 (nil) Mahesh Chand & Anr Versus State & Ors
40. 5467/2010 (nil) Pooran Mal Mahawar Versus State & Ors
41. 5493/2010 (nil) Rajendra Kumar Singogriya Versus State & Ors
42. 5500/2010 (nil) Bhawani Singh Shekhawat & Ors Versus State & Ors
43. 5508/2010 (nil) Sarita Kumari Versus State & Ors
44. 5509/2010 (nil) Sarita Gora Versus State & Ors
45. 5516/2010 (nil) Kavita Kumari Versus State & Ors
46. 5519/2010 (nil) Suman Gurjar & Anr & Anr Versus State & Ors
47. 5529/2010 (nil) Suresh Chand Jorwal Versus State & Ors
48. 5532/2010 (nil) Santra Mahada Versus State & Ors
49. 5536/2010 (nil) Subhita Kumari Versus State & Ors
50. 5550/2010 (nil) Naroj Versus State & Ors
51. 5578/2010 (nil) Vimala Devi Versus State & Anr
52. 5583/2010 (nil) Kum Komal Kumari Versus State & Ors
53. 5584/2010 (nil) Shiv Raj Nagar Versus State & Ors
54. 5595/2010 (nil) Poonam Muraria & Anr Versus State & Ors
55. 5607/2010 (nil) Shyam Lal Bairwa & Anr Versus State & Ors
56. 5663/2010 (nil) Sulochana & Anr Versus State & Ors
57. 5672/2010 (nil) Sharmila Yadav Versus State & Ors
58. 5675/2010 (nil) Sanjana Kumari Meena Versus State & Ors
59. 5676/2010 (nil) Smt. Renu Jain Versus State & Ors
60. 5684/2010 (nil) Kavita Fandan & Anr Versus State & Anr
61. 5689/2010 (nil) Jyoti Sharma Versus State & Anr
62. 5704/2010 (nil) Sita Devi Versus State & Ors
63. 5764/2010 (nil) Rajkumar Jaiswal Versus State & Ors
64. 5765/2010 (nil) Madan Mohan Jangid Versus State & Ors
65. 5768/2010 (nil) Dr. Bheem Singh Jat Versus State & Anr
66. 5793/2010 (nil) Devlal Gurjar & Ors Versus State & Ors
67. 5796/2010 (nil) Seema Bais Versus State & Ors
68. 5808/2010 (nil) Narendra Singh Meena Versus State & Ors
69. 5859/2010 (nil) Km Anju Lata Versus RPSC Ajmer & Ors
70. 5867/2010 (nil) Krishna Tak Versus RPSC Ajmer & Anr
71. 5874/2010 (nil) Smt. Seema Sharma Versus RPSC Ajmer & Anr
72. 5895/2010 (nil) Subhash Chand Versus State & Ors
73. 5922/2010 (nil) Susheela Versus State & Ors
74. 5956/2010 (nil) Smt. Sunita Kumawat & Anr Versus State & Ors
75. 5963/2010 (nil) Saroj Bairwa Versus State & Ors
76. 5965/2010 (nil) Smt. Sunita Sharma & Anr Versus State & Ors
77. 5970/2010 (nil) Ram Karan Gurjar Versus State & Anr
78. 6151/2010 (nil) Anju Yadav & Ors Versus State & Ors
79. 6155/2010 (nil) Krishna Goyal Versus State & Ors
80. 6212/2010 (nil) Deepa Agrawal & Anr Versus State & Ors
81. 6230/2010 (nil) Rajesh Kumar Giri & Anr Versus State & Ors
82. 6252/2010 (nil) Suman Kothari Versus State & Anr
83. 6280/2010 (nil) Pooja Kumawat Versus State & Ors
84. 6314/2010 (nil) Subhash Singh Versus State & Ors
85. 6316/2010 (nil) Anita Kumari Versus State & Ors
86. 6379/2010 (nil) Babu Lal Saini & Ors Versus State & Ors
87. 6432/2010 (nil) Damodar Prasad Kumawat Versus State & Ors
88. 6433/2010 (nil) Bhawani Singh Tanwar Versus State & Ors
89. 6434/2010 (nil) Ms. Monika Purohit Versus State & Ors
90. 6520/2010 (nil) Praveen Jonwal Versus State & Ors
91. 6572/2010 (nil) Ms. Sangeeta Agrawal Versus State & Anr
92. 6689/2010 (nil) Monika Meena Versus State & Ors
93. 6699/2010 (nil) Deepti Sharma Versus State & Ors
94. 6754/2010 (nil) Krishan Murari Gocher & Anr Versus State & Ors
95. 6791/2010 (771/10) Naresh Kumar Versus State & Ors
96. 6804/2010 (761/10) Kavita Khatri Versus State & Ors
97. 6829/2010 (795/10) Urmila Kumari Pankaj & Anr Versus State & Ors
98. 6902/2010 (844/10) Laxmi Devi Goyal Versus State & Ors
99. 6924/2010 (nil) Yashoda Bai Mourya Versus State & Ors
100. 6931/2010 (869/10) Usha Sharma Versus State & Ors
101. 7047/2010 (943/10) Kavita Versus State & Ors
102. 7065/2010 (955/10) Smt.Chinu Kumari Versus State & Ors
103. 7072/2010 (961/10) Kailash Chand Meena Versus State & Ors
104. 7090/2010 (974/10) Ms. Kamlesh Kumari Meena Versus RPSC & Ors
105. 7097/2010 (nil) Arpit Gautam Versus RPSC & Anr
106. 7154/2010 (1018/10) Pukhraj Meena Versus State & Ors
107. 7259/2010 (1097/10) Surendra Meghwal Versus State & Ors
108. 7289/2010 (1123/10) Indira Versus State & Ors
109. 7301/2010 (1135/10) Kum Anju Rani Meena Versus State & Ors
110. 7412/2010 (1213/10) Chetan Kumar & Anr Versus State & Anr
111. 7529/2010 (1293/10) Suman Kumari Yadav Versus State & Ors
112. 7552/2010 (nil) Guman Singh Saharan & Anr Versus State & Ors
113. 7693/2010 (1403/10) Sangeeta Kumar Barodia Versus State & Ors
114. 8096/2010 (1701/10) Babu Lal Meena Versus State & Ors
115. 8694/2010 (2237/10) Saroj Kumari Goyal Versus State & Ors
116. 8912/2010 (nil) Sapna Khandelwal Versus State & Ors
117. 10296/2010 (3688/10) Saroj Versus State & Ors
118. 10356/2010 (3740/10) Nitesh Sharma & Anr Versus State & Anr
119. 11272/2010 (4504/10) Meenakshi Agarwal Versus State & Ors
120. 13734/2010 (6499/10) Tara Chand Versus State & Ors
121. 13748/2010 (6509/10) Satish Chand Sharma Versus State & Anr
122. 13760/2010 (6526/10) Harkesh Bairwa Versus State & Anr
123. 14008/2010 (6740/10) Asha Bangar Versus State & Ors
124. 14235/2010 (6953/10) Kushal Singh & Anr Versus State & Ors
125. 14354/2010 (7056/10) Meenakshi Versus State & Ors
126. 14367/2010 (7069/10) Saroj Kumari Versus State & Ors
127. 14620/2010 (7270/10) Smt. Saroj Sewda Versus State & Anr
128. 14729/2010 (7373/10) Sunita Versus State & Ors
129. 14832/2010 (7460/10) Sube Singh Versus State & Anr
130. 14982/2010 (7597/10) Hemlata Verma Versus State & Ors
131. 15604/2010 (8131/10) Jagdish Prasad Saini Versus State & Ors
132. 15624/2010 (8142/10) Madan Lal Golia Versus State & Ors
133. 15783/2010 (8279/10) Priyanka Gupta Versus State & Ors
134. 15918/2010 (8388/10) Rajkumari Jatav Versus State & Anr
135. 16046/2010 (8494/10) Vinita Sharma Versus State & Ors
136. 13580/2010 (6379/10) Ravi Shekhar Sharma Versus State & Anr.
137. 13619/2010 (6402/10) Rajesh Lunia Versus State & Anr
138. 13625/2010 (6408/10) Ratan Singh Versus State & Anr.
139. 16197/2010 (8619/10) Smt. Maya Devi Versus State & Ors.
140. 5533/2010 (nil) Siyaram Versus State & Ors.
141. 6247/2010 (nil) Sita Devi Jat Versus State & Anr.
142. 7961/2010 (1601/10) Kaushalya Koli Versus State & Ors.
143. 14349/2010 (7057/10) Kuldeep Kumar Versus State & Anr.
144. 14414/2010 (7113/10) Preeti Sharma Versus State & Ors.
145. 14478/2010 (7163/10) Devendra Kumar Sharma Versus State & Ors.
146. 5507/2010 (nil) Seema Kanwar Versus State & Ors.
147. 6459/2010 (nil) Mrs. Sudha Ranka Versus State & Ors.
148. 5309/2010 (nil) Smt. Anju Jain Versus State & Ors.
149. 6615/2010 (nil) Vimla Balai & Anr. Versus State & Ors.
150. 6616/2010 (nil) Mahesh Kr Chahar Versus State & Ors.
151. 14745/2010 (7387/10) Vijay Laxmi Versus State & Anr (Ajay Rastogi), J.
K.Khatri/p22/ 4882CW2010RsrJanVrsith-Snskr(151).doc