Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Db Special Appeal (W) No.1522/2014 2. Db ... vs State Of Rajasthan 2015 Volume (1) Wlc ... on 5 October, 2015
Author: Ajay Rastogi
Bench: Ajay Rastogi
In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan
Jaipur Bench
1. DB Special Appeal (W) No.1522/2014 2. DB Special Appeal (W) No.519/2014
3. DB Special Appeal (W) No.655/2014 4. DB Special Appeal (W) No.679/2014
5. DB Special Appeal (W) No.680/2014 6. DB Special Appeal (W) No.681/2014
7. DB Special Appeal (W) No.682/2014 8. DB Special Appeal (W) No.1008/2014
9. DB Special Appeal (W) No.1009/2014 10. DB Special Appeal (W) No.1010/2014
11. DB Special Appeal (W) No.1011/2014 12. DB Special Appeal (W) No.1012/2014
13. DB Special Appeal (W) No.1013/2014 14. DB Special Appeal (W) No.1014/2014
15. DB Special Appeal (W) No.1015/2014 16. DB Special Appeal (W) No.1183/2014
17. DB Special Appeal (W) No.1184/2014 18. DB Special Appeal (W) No.1185/2014
19. DB Special Appeal (W) No.1186/2014 20. DB Special Appeal (W) No.1187/2014
21. DB Special Appeal (W) No.1188/2014 22.DB Special Appeal (W) No.1189/2014
23. DB Special Appeal (W) No.1190/2014 24.DB Special Appeal (W) No.1191/2014
25. DB Special Appeal (W) No.1192/2014 26.DB Special Appeal (W) No.1195/2014
27. DB Special Appeal (W) No.1196/2014 28. DB Special Appeal (W) No.1211/2014
29. DB Special Appeal (W) No.1214/2014 30. DB Special Appeal (W) No.1220/2014
31. DB Special Appeal (W) No.1519/2014 32. DB Special Appeal (W) No.1520/2014
33. DB Special Appeal (W) No.1528/2014 34. DB Special Appeal (W) No.1529/2014
35. DB Special Appeal (W) No.1530/2014 36. DB Special Appeal (W) No.1553/2014
37. DB Special Appeal (W) No. 1561/2014 38. DB Special Appeal (W) No. 1565/2014
39. DB Special Appeal (W) No. 1566/2014 40. DB Special Appeal (W) No.1567/2014
41. DB Special Appeal (W) No. 1568/2014 42. DB Special Appeal (W) No.1643/2014
43. DB Special Appeal (W) No.1719/2014 44. DB Special Appeal (W) No.1720/2014
45. DB Special Appeal (W) No.1753/2014 46. DB Special Appeal (W) No.2040/2014
47. DB Special Appeal (W) No.2041/2014 48. DB Special Appeal (W) No.2043/2014
49. DB Special Appeal (W) No.2044/2014 50. DB Special Appeal (W) No.2050/2014
51. DB Special Appeal (W) No. 2051/2014 52. DB Special Appeal (W) No.1929/2014
53. DB Special Appeal (W) No.1994/2014 54. DB Special Appeal (W) No.2042/2014
Date of Order 5.10.2015
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice JK Ranka
Mr. SK Gupta, ADDl. Adv. General with
Mr. Aniket Vyas, for appellant.
Mr. RP Saini, Mr. DK Bhardwaj, Mr. KK Vyas, Mr. Karanpal Singh,
Mr. Vijay Bhardwaj, Mr. Vigyan Shah, Mr. RK Goyal, Mr. GP Sharma,
Mr. Jitendra Kumar Sharma, Mr. SK Singodia, Mr. Sandeep Garsha,
Mr. Navin Dhuwan, Mr. BBL Sharma, Mr. Akhilesh Pareek,
Mr. Mahendra Goyal, Mr. Tarun Jain, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain,
Mr. Lokesh Sharma, Mr. Ashwini Jaiman, Mr. JK Sharma,
Mr. Nikhilesh Katara, Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Mr. Rajveer Sharma, for
respondents.
Instant special appeals have been preferred against the order of the Ld. Single Judge impugned herein dt.15.3.2015.
However, office has pointed out delay in filing special appeals for which separate application has been filed u/S.5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay.
This Court is satisfied with the explanation furnished for the delay duly supported by the affidavit. The application stands allowed. Delay stands condoned.
Counsel for the parties submits that the controversy which has been raised in the instant batch of appeals has been decided by the Division Bench in DB SAW-472/2013 decided on 16.7.2015 and para 6 relevant for the present purpose reads as infra-
6. The Division Bench of this High Court at Jodhpur in Smt.Megha Shetty vs. State of Rajasthan 2015 Volume (1) WLC (Rajasthan) 761 has already dealt with exactly the same issue raised in the present bunch of appeals. The Division Bench relying upon the above-referred decisions of the Supreme Court has held that in the event of woman candidate belonging to OBC category on securing more marks than the woman candidate of general category finds a position in the select list of candidates of general category, the same cannot be treated as migration. And this decision of the Division Bench is binding on us with which we also fully agree. It is also to be noted that none of the writ petitioners/respondents herein who are women of general category has secured more marks than the women candidate of Other connected writ appeals OBC category selected in open category. The select list of women candidates prepared by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission is strictly in accordance with the law explained by the Supreme Court.
Counsel for respondent however is unable to dispute regarding controversy which has been decided by the Division Bench of which reference has been made and further submits that the judgment on which the appellant has placed reliance and referred by this Court is under challenge before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in special leave to appeal.
Counsel for respondents jointly submits that at least the final verdict of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in examining the order dt.16.7.2015 may be binding on the parties and their matter may also be accordingly reviewed keeping in view of the judgment of the Division Bench referred to supra.
Counsel for the appellant has instruction to inform that outcome of the pending SLP will be binding on the parties.
Consequently, in the light of judgment of Division Bench (supra), the order of the ld. Single Judge is quashed and set aside and the present special appeals stand disposed of in the light of the judgment dt.16.7.2015 and the judgment of the Division Bench shall be mutatis mutandis applicable in the instant case also.
However, we make it clear that outcome of the pending special leave to appeal against the order dt.16.7.2015 shall be binding on the parties.
[JK Ranka], J. [Ajay Rastogi], J. dsr-
"All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed"
Datar Singh P.S.