Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Anita Kumari vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 3 January, 2018
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13304 / 2017
Anita Kumari D/o Babu Lal, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village &
Post Devroad, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Rural
Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. Zila Parishad Bikaner Through Its Chief Executive Officer.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hanuman Singh Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikas Choudhary for Mr. S.S. Ladrecha,
AAG
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 03/01/2018
1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:
"i) The action of the respondents while not providing appointment to the petitioner on the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-I) despite possessing more marks than the respective cut off of her category may kindly be declared bad in the eye of law, unjust, arbitrary and so also violative to Article 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India.
ii) The respondents may kindly be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment while considering her marks obtained in RTET 2012 and accordingly provide her appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-I) with all consequential benefits; and/or
iii) in alternate the respondents may kindly be directed to consider her marks of RTET 2011 of (2 of 2) [CW-13304/2017] petitioner and if she comes in merit, she be offered appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-I) with all consequential benefits; and/or"
2. The sum and substance of the petitioner's case is that his merit may be reconsidered for the post of Teacher Grade-III Level-I recruitment arising out of the advertisement 2013.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent makes a statement supported by his pleading that even if the petitioner's marks for RTET 2012 are taken into consideration then also the petitioner will not fall in merit.
4. In light of the aforesaid submissions, since the petitioner does not fall in the merit even on inclusion of RTET 2012 marks, no indulgence is required in this writ petition.
5. Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed. In case, any other grievance apart from RTET 2012 marks is still surviving, the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all those issues by taking appropriate recourse.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J. zeeshan/