Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Seema Rathore vs The State Of Rajasthan And Anr ... on 13 September, 2023
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2023:RJ-JD:29288] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15609/2017 Smt. Seema Rathore W/o Late Shri Sohanlal Ji, R/o 85 Thakkar Bapa Colony, Suraj Pole, District Udaipur.
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Department Of Local Self Government, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Commissioner, Municipal Council, Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chandraveer Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anurag Shukla
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
13/09/2023
1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.01.2016, whereby the respondent - Municipal Council, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Council') has proposed to terminate petitioner from the post of Safai Karmchari on the ground that she had made a wrong declaration in her affidavit in relation to number of children born to her on or after 01.06.2002.
2. Learned counsel submitted that the action of the respondents in terminating petitioner's services on the ground of having more than two children on or after 01.06.2002, is illegal, inasmuch as, the very condition of ineligibility contained in Rule 9A of the Rules of 2012 has been declared ultra-vires and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, by the Division (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:51:54 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:29288] (2 of 4) [CW-15609/2017] Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 02.04.2019, rendered in the case of Anita & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16572/2018 and judgment dated 05.11.2015, passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2703/2015 :
Smt. Indira Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan.
3. It was also argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 08.07.2020, passed in the case of Madan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8108/2019, while quashing the order(s) under challenge has held that since the ineligibility, on account of having more than two children, itself has been declared ultra-vires, the requirement of furnishing affidavit in this regard is rendered otiose.
4. Mr. Anurag Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Council submitted that the petitioner's services have been terminated on the ground of furnishing wrong information, as the same was in clear contradiction of the condition No.6 of the appointment order dated 25.09.2013 and terms of the advertisement.
5. In the case of Madan Lal (supra), this Court has held thus:-
"13. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case alongwith the precedent law cited, this Court is of the view that once Rule 9A of the Rules of 2012 itself has been struck down, then any action of the respondents, in now denying the petitioners their employment, cannot be sustained.
14. This Court is of the firm opinion that the jurisprudence of Avtar Singh (supra) can be taken (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:51:54 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:29288] (3 of 4) [CW-15609/2017] into consideration as the discretion to cancel the appointments ought to go in favour of the employees, who are on the last pedestal of the government job, and suppression, in the present case, is immaterial, as even if the facts would have been disclosed, the same would not have adversely affected the fitness of an incumbent for employment.
15. This Court has taken note of the fact that for the post in question, the respondents themselves have laid down their policy, relevant portion of which has already been reproduced herein above, that the standard of scrutiny ought to be lenient, as the post in question belongs to a very backward and lowly educated contenders.
16. This Court finds that the judgment rendered in Pavani Devi & other connected petitions (supra) covers the present issue.
17. In view of the above, the present writ petitions are allowed, and while quashing and set aside the impugned order(s) dated 29.03.2019, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioners in service as Safai employee with all consequential benefits. All pending applications stand disposed of."
6. Mr. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent - Council submitted that an intra-Court appeal has been preferred before the Division Bench of this Court being D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.371/2020 : Jodhpur Municipal Corporation Vs. Madan Lal, against the above referred judgment in the case of Madan Lal (supra), in which an interim order staying the effect and operation of the order dated 08.07.2020 has been passed and the same is pending.
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:51:54 AM)
[2023:RJ-JD:29288] (4 of 4) [CW-15609/2017]
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this juncture submitted that though an interim order was passed, but the same has been vacated by the Division Bench of this Court, however the appeal is pending consideration.
8. In view of the aforesaid fact situation and considering that Coordinate Benches of this Court have set aside similar impugned orders, whereby services of similarly situated Safai Karmchari were terminated, the present writ petition is also allowed.
9. The order dated 19.01.2016 is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits.
10. It shall be required of the respondent - Council to re-appoint the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today with continuity in service. The period between 19.01.2016 and date of reappointment order shall be notionally considered and the petitioner shall not be entitled for salary etc. for such period.
11. Stay petition also stands disposed of.
(DINESH MEHTA),J 42-Ramesh/-
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:51:54 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)