Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Sharda Saharan vs The State Of Rajasthan on 31 August, 2018
Bench: Kurian Joseph, Sanjay Kishan Kaul
1
ITEM NO.18 COURT NO.4 SECTION XV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 27263/2018
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 01-06-2017
in DBSAW No. 178/2006 passed by the High Court Of Judicature For
Rajasthan At Jaipur)
SHARDA SAHARAN Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. Respondent(s)
(IA No.116610/2018-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA
No.116611/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 31-08-2018 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
For Petitioner(s) Ms. Madhurima Tatia, AOR
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
In Ground D of the Special Leave Petition, it is stated as follows :-
“Because the Hon’ble Division Bench ought to have appreciated that the case of the petitioner is similar to the Writ Petitioners in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 784/2003 in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6287/2003. The Signature Not Verified said Writ Petitioners were allowed by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court and the Digitally signed by JAYANT KUMAR ARORA Date: 2018.09.01 13:03:41 IST Reason: respondents were directed to consider the case of the Writ Petitioners in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 784/2003 and S. B. Civil Writ 2 Petition No. 6287/2003 for appointment on the post of Nurse Grade-II from the date, candidates lower in order of merit were appointed pursuant to Advertisement dated 31.7.2003. However, the Ld. Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner. The decision of the Ld. Single Judge was contrary to settled law. The petitioner suffered due to erroneous order of the Ld. Single Judge as the candidates who were appointed on the post of Nurse Grade-II on contract basis pursuant to Advertisement dated 31.7.2003 as well as the candidates who were appointed in compliance of the Hon’ble High Court’s orders were subsequently appointed on regular basis in the year 2009 pursuant to Notification dated 18.7.2008. The non selection of the petitioner pursuant to Advertisement dated 31.7.2003 despite securing higher marks than the candidates selected resulted in missing the opportunity for appointment on regular basis in the year 2009 as due to lack of experience the petitioner was not given bonus marks whereas other candidates having experience were given bonus marks and selected.” In case the petitioner is a similarly situated person, merely because it took some time in the Court for disposal of her case, justice cannot be denied to her. Therefore, we permit the petitioner to file an appropriate representation to the first respondent and in case the petitioner is similarly situated as those referred to in Ground D, which we have extracted above, the 3 petitioner shall be given a similar treatment and the impugned Judgments shall not stand in the way of the first respondent considering the representation.
In view of the above, the Special Leave Petition is disposed of.
Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.
(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU DIWAN) COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR