Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Preeti Kumari Daughter Of Shri Jagdish ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 19 January, 2023
Author: Sudesh Bansal
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8820/2022
Preeti Kumari Daughter Of Shri Jagdish Prasad W/o Shri Sanjay
Kumar Hindauniya, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Village And
Post Office Umri Tehsil Gangapurcity, District Sawai-Madhopur
(Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Primary
And Upper Primary Education, Secretariat Jaipur
2. Director, Primary And Upper Primary Education,
Elementary Directorate Bikaner (Rajasthan)
3. District Education Officer, Primary Education, Sawai-
Madhopur (Raj.)
4. Additional Director (Administrative), Primary Education
Rajasthan Bikaner
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aveesh Mourya For Respondent(s) : Ms. Srijana Shresth for Mr. C.L. Saini, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 19/01/2023 The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction to appoint her on the post of Teacher Level-I, general/ Special Education in special qualified category since she suffer 40% disability in both eyes.
2. Counsel for petitioner submitted that disability certificate of petitioner was not found valid by respondents and her (Downloaded on 21/01/2023 at 01:16:12 AM) (2 of 2) [CW-8820/2022] candidature was not considered. Therefore, the petitioner filed instant writ. However, on filing this writ petition, this court vide order dated 29-6-2022 directed respondents to constitute Medical Board by the Superintendent, SMS Hospital Jaipur for the purpose of examining the disability of the petitioner. Pursuant thereto the petitioner was examined by the Medical Board. Vide report dated 27-7-2022, it was found that she was suffering from BE High Myopia, which was not any disability and ZERO percent disability was found. The Medical Board has opined that "not eligible for physical handicapped quota for visual impairment".
3. In view of above, this court find that no case is made out in favour of the petitioner to claim appointment pursuant to advertisement in the physically handicapped quota on account of visual impairment. Hence, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed.
4. Stay application and all other pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J Arn/214 (Downloaded on 21/01/2023 at 01:16:12 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)