Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
R P S C Ajmer vs Smt Anju Rao &Anr; on 31 August, 2017
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1057 / 2015
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer through its
Secretary.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Anju Rao, aged about 32 years, wife of late Shri Ravi
Yadav, resident of Post Khohri, Tehsil Behrod, District Alwar.
Respondent writ petitioner
2. The State of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Department of School Education, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
----Proforma-respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. M.F. Baig For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma on behalf of Ms. Sangeeta Sharma _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS JUDGMENT 31/08/2017
1. The fundamental principle of every legal system is:
strive for justice while applying the law.
2. The respondent was married to a soldier in the Indian Army. She applied for being appointed as a teacher pursuant to an advertisement dated 02.08.2013. Much before the result of the examination could be declared her husband died in an insurgency affected area on 04.11.2014. She applied to be treated as a candidate in the category of a widow. The department took the stand that her original application was in the category of an OBC Female and not an OBC Female(widow) and thus her candidature (2 of 2) [SAW-1057/2015] could not be considered in said category.
3. The view taken by the learned Single Judge while doing justice to both sides is that if there is a vacancy in the category of OBC Female(widow), then alone respondent's candidature in said category be considered.
4. Meaning thereby, the impugned order causes no administrative inconvenience to the appellant and takes away right of no candidate.
5. The impugned order has been passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. The peculiar facts of the instant case compells this Court not to interfere with the impugned order, which in any case does not have any value as a precedent. (VIJAY KUMAR VYAS)J. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)C.J. KKC/s-22