Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Deeksha vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:40794) on 7 October, 2024
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:40794]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11484/2024
Deeksha D/o Mehra Ram Choudhary, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
C/o Suresh Kumar, Village And Post Lolawa, Tehsil Gudhamalani,
District Barmer (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
(Panchayati Raj), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. Additional Commissioner, Rural Development And
Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Barmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pawan Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Patel, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order 07/10/2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by a judgment rendered by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11554/2018 (Govind Singh Chundawat V/s State of Rajasthan & Ors.) along with another connected matter decided on 02.02.2022 in the following terms :-
"It is relevant to mention here that during the process of recruitment, there being a doubt about the certificate of the petitioner, a clarification was sought by the Chief Executive Officer of Zila Parishad, Udaipur from the Regional Directorate of Apprenticeship Training, Faridabad. In response to the same (Downloaded on 07/10/2024 at 09:35:32 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:40794] (2 of 3) [CW-11484/2024] it was specifically replied by the said officer that the certificate has been issued under the aegis of NCVT (National Council of Vocational Training) which is a body recognized by Government of India. Perusal of the said response leaves no doubt that NCVT is an institute recognized by the Government of India and the petitioner has been issued certificate by the NCVT. Therefore, the ground of respondents that the petitioner had obtained the certificate from an unrecognized institute falls flat.
So far as the ground of the respondents that the said certificate is not in conformity with the conditions prescribed in the advertisement is concerned, it is relevant to note that the advertisement specifically provides for a diploma in computer science/computer applications issued by any institute or university recognized under the law. It further provides for a certificate in Computer Operator and Programming Assistant conducted under the vocational training scheme of National or State level body. The certificate of the petitioner has been issued by NCVT which would definitely fall within the parameters of "a body conducting the vocational training program". Once it is clear on record that NCVT is an institute recognized by the Government of India it can safely be concluded that the certificate issued by the said instituteis also valid for all purposes. Moresoever, as submitted on record, the petitioner had obtained qualification of RSCIT too later on.
In view of the above facts, it is clear on record that the certificate obtained by the petitioner and submitted along with her application form is within the parameters as laid down in the advertisement and the petitioner cannot be denied appointment by non-consideration of the same. Moresoever, when during the document verification process, the department itself had verified the same and after verification found the petitioner to be eligible and declare her selected it cannot be permitted take a shifting stand later on.
In view of the above observations, the present writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to offer appointment to the petitioner with immediate effect. The petitioner would not been titled for any monetary benefits but she would be entitled to all the notional benefits w.e.f. the date the person less meritorious to her had been selected."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in these circumstances, prays that the petitioner may be permitted to file an appropriate representation before the respondent authorities for consideration of her case in the light of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Govind Singh Chundawat(supra). He further prays that the respondents may be directed to consider and decide the representation at the earliest.
(Downloaded on 07/10/2024 at 09:35:32 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:40794] (3 of 3) [CW-11484/2024]
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in case such representation is filed by the petitioner, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law.
5. Considering the submissions made before this Court, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent authorities by way of filing an appropriate representation along with a copy of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Govind Singh Chundawat(supra) for redressal of her grievances along with the other rules applicable in the present case.
6. In the event of filing such representation by the petitioner, the respondent authorities are directed to consider and decide the same at the earliest, keeping in mind the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Govind Singh Chundawat(supra), preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of such representation, strictly in accordance with law.
7. Stay petition as well as other pending misc. applications, if any, stands disposed of.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 10-SunilS/-
(Downloaded on 07/10/2024 at 09:35:32 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)