Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Anita vs State Of Rajasthan on 26 August, 2020
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR (1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7639/2020 Renu, Aged About 32 Years, B/c Balai, R/o Rampura Via Thoi, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar (Raj.), At Present Posted As Teacher Grade Iii At Govt. Upper Primary School, Maldar Ki Dhani, Panchayat Samiti Bali, District Pali (Raj.) Employee I.d. Rjpa201929031304.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Education Department (Elementary), Government Of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director/commissioner, Elementary Education Rajasthan Bikaner.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Pali (Raj.).
4. The District Education Officer, Pali (Raj.).
5. The Vikas Adhikari Panchayat Samiti Bali, District Pali (Raj.).
6. The Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Government Aadarsh Senior Higher Secondary School, Lundara, Panchayat Samiti Bali, District Pali (Raj.).
----Respondents connect with (2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7655/2020 Anita D/o Shri Dalvir Singh W/o Shri Lokesh Singh, Aged About 33 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Ward No. 11 Surota Lakha, Tehsil Kumhder, District Bharatpur (Raj.). At Present Posted As Teacher Grade Iii At Govt. Upper Primary School, Sankda Sambharwada, Panchayat Samiti Bali, District Pali (Raj.). Employee I.d. Rjpa201929030983.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Education Department (Elementary), Government Of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director/commissioner, Elementary Education (Downloaded on 27/08/2020 at 08:43:51 PM) (2 of 6) [CW-7639/2020] Rajasthan Bikaner.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Pali (Raj.).
4. District Education Officer, Pali (Raj.).
5. The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Bali, District Pali (Raj.).
----Respondents (3) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7798/2020 Sonam D/o Shri Raghuveer Singh, Aged About 32 Years, W/o Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav B/c Yadav, R/o Riwali Tehsil Behrod District Alwar (Raj.). At Present Posted As Teacher Grade Iii At Govt. Upper Priamary School, Urana Bhimana Panchayat Samiti Bali, District Pali (Raj.). Employee I.d. Rjpa2019029030150
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Education Department (Elementary), Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director/commissioner Elementary Education Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Pali (Raj.).
4. District Education Officer, Pali (Raj.).
5. The Vikas Adhikari Panchayat Samiti Bali, District Pali (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sushil Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) :
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Judgment
26/08/2020
(Downloaded on 27/08/2020 at 08:43:51 PM)
(3 of 6) [CW-7639/2020]
(1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7639/2020:
1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 9.6.2020 whereby petitioner's selection on the post of Teacher Grade-III, Level-II has been cancelled by the respondents.
2. Requisite facts in a nutshell are that petitioner applied for the post of Teacher Grade-III pursuant to advertisement dated 11.9.2017. Initially, she had filed her caste certificate issued in her husband's name, whereafter, she produced certificate issued in her father's name also and based upon such certificate, the respondents accorded appointment to her and permitted her to join duties.
3. After the petitioner had joined the duties, the respondent -
Director Education issued a notice dated 5.11.2019 to her, proposing to cancel her selection.
4. The petitioner approached this Court by way of filing a writ petition and challenged the proposed action of cancelling her candidature.
5. The petitioner's writ petition was found premature by this Court and vide order dated 2.12.2019, the same was disposed of with the direction to the petitioner to file her response to the notice so issued.
6. After considering petitioner's reply, the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Bali has passed the order dated 9.6.2020 and cancelled petitioner's selection in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 30.8.2018 rendered in (Downloaded on 27/08/2020 at 08:43:51 PM) (4 of 6) [CW-7639/2020] the case of Bir Singh Vs. Dehli Jal Board & Ors. (SLP No.1085/2013) and judgment dated 1.11.2018 rendered in the case of Ranjana Kumari Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. (SLP No.8425/2013).
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the order dated 9.6.2020 argued that the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Ranjana Kumari (supra) cannot be applied retrospectively to the petitioner inasmuch as not only the recruitment was initiated prior to such judgment, even the petitioner's eligibility was examined on 25.1.2018, when the petitioner had produced her documents and the respondents found them in order.
8. Learned counsel relied upon judgments of this Court rendered in the case of Ruchika Kansara Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., [2013(5) WLC (Raj.) 310] and in the case of Bhupal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan [RLW 1988 (2) page 428] and submitted that the selection, which was done in accordance with law, cannot be cancelled.
9. Heard.
10. Petitioner's caste certificate clearly shows that she is a Scheduled Tribe from State of Harayana, as such, she cannot claim reservation as a ST candidate in the State of Rajasthan.
11. Learned counsel's argument that the judgment rendered in the case of Bir Singh (supra) and Ranjana Kumari (supra) were pronounced on 30.08.2018 and 1.11.2018, respectively and thus, the petitioner cannot be non-suited on this count, is not tenable in (Downloaded on 27/08/2020 at 08:43:51 PM) (5 of 6) [CW-7639/2020] the eye of law. True it is, that the recruitment process began vide advertisement dated 11.9.2017 and petitioner's documents were verified prior to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranjana Kumari (supra), however, she was given appointment on 31.7.2019 after the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ranjana Kumari's case (supra). In the opinion of the Court, the date of appointment is the relevant date.
12. That apart, Ranjana Kumar's judgment (supra) is not the first judgment in this line. Even earlier judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court including the judgment in the case of Bir Singh Vs. Delhi Jal Board (supra) have consistently held that a candidate born in one State after migration cannot claim reservation in another State.
13. So far as the judgments in the case of Ruchika Kansara (supra) and Bhupal Singh (supra), cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, they are not applicable in the facts of the present case inasmuch as in both the judgments this Court in view of the peculiar facts, has dealt with the cases of irregular appointments made by the authority. It was observed that there was no fault of the petitioner(s). However, in the present case, the petitioner was appointed fundamentally contrary to the principle of reservation and law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court. The appointments in the cases cited by learned counsel for the petitioner were irregular, whereas they are illegal in the present case. Petitioner's origin being in a State other than Rajasthan, hits at the very root of her eligibility. The petitioner's appointment being fundamentally void, cannot be allowed to stand. (Downloaded on 27/08/2020 at 08:43:51 PM)
(6 of 6) [CW-7639/2020]
14. This Court does not find any substance and force in the present writ petition, hence, the same is dismissed.
15. The stay application also stands disposed of. (2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7655/2020 and (3) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7798/2020:
Following the judgment passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7639/2020 : Renu Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; these writ petitions are also dismissed.
The stay applications therein stand disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J 153-CPGoyal/-
(Downloaded on 27/08/2020 at 08:43:51 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)