Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Valji Patidar vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 8 January, 2024
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2024:RJ-JD:1014]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 19/2023
Valji Patidar S/o Shri Kodar Patidar, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
Village And Post Paloda, Tehsil Garhi, District Banswara (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director,
Department Of Elementary Education, Bikaner (Raj.).
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Banswara (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Mehta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG assisted by
Mr. Dhairyaditya Rathore
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order 08/01/2024
1. The present review petition has been preferred against the order dated 28.09.2022 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10695/2018 whereby the writ petition as preferred by the petitioner was dismissed in light of the ratio as laid down in Samarath Mal Kumhar & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12859/2018 (decided on 20.09.2022).
Vide the order under review, this Court, on a submission made on behalf of learned counsel for the respondents that the controversy is covered by the decision in the case of Samarath Mal Kumhar (supra), observed that learned counsel for the petitioner was not in a position to refute the said submission and (Downloaded on 28/01/2024 at 08:04:44 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:1014] (2 of 4) [WRW-19/2023] hence, proceeded on to dismiss the writ petition in light of the ratio laid down in Samarath Mal Kumhar's case (supra).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inadvertently, during the course of arguments in the writ petition, the notification dated 13.11.2019 as issued by the State Government subsequent to the filing of the present writ petition, could not be brought to the notice of the Court and hence, a D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.1117/2022 was preferred against the order dated 28.09.2022. However, the Division Bench observed that the petitioner should prefer a review petition for the said purpose and hence, in pursuance to the observations made by the Division Bench, the present review petition has been preferred.
3. Learned counsel submits that vide notification dated 13.11.2019, clause (a) of sub-paragraph (ii)(A) of paragraph 1 of the notification dated 23.08.2010 had been amended. Vide the said amendment, all those candidates who took admission in the Bachelor of Education/Bachelor of Elementary Education/ Equivalent course, prior to 29.07.2011, were considered to be eligible and hence the petitioner, who had taken admission in the required diploma course on 23.06.2011, that is prior to 29.07.2011, definitely was eligible to be considered as he had 49.08% marks in the Senior Secondary Examination. He submits that the above being a point of law, can be raised by him within the scope of review and hence, the same be considered by the Court.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that no case for review is made out in the present writ petition as the matter definitely stands covered by Samarath Mal Kumhar's (Downloaded on 28/01/2024 at 08:04:44 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:1014] (3 of 4) [WRW-19/2023] case (supra). Further, even if the notification dated 13.11.2019 is taken into consideration, the same would be of no effect as thereby, the amendment has been made only qua sub-paragraph
(ii) of the notification dated 23.08.2010 by which even otherwise the petitioner would not be governed as he is governed by sub- para (i) of the said notification.
Counsel further submits that even otherwise the controversy subsequently went upto the Division Bench and rests decided as of date, wherein it has been held that amendment, if any, vide any notification would not affect any recruitment process which stands completed.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. What has been tried to be argued before this Court is that the petitioner, having 49.08% marks in the Senior Secondary Examination and having taken admission in the diploma course on 23.06.2011, would be governed by the notification dated 13.11.2019. Meaning thereby, he was possessing the required qualification on the date of submission of form and hence, ought to have been considered.
7. The submission as made by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be said to be tenable firstly, because not even a whisper about the said notification had been made in the writ petition. Secondly, even if it is assumed that the notification dated 13.11.2019 was not in existence on the date of filing of the writ petition, the same came into existence during the pendency of the writ petition and definitely, before the disposal of the writ petition. Till the date of decision, not a single plea pertaining to the said notification was raised and hence, the same could not (Downloaded on 28/01/2024 at 08:04:44 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:1014] (4 of 4) [WRW-19/2023] have been considered by the Court. Thirdly, a bare perusal of the notification dated 13.11.2019 makes it clear that vide the same, an amendment in notification dated 23.08.2010 had been introduced only qua sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph 1 which clearly pertains to classes 6th to 8th and further to the qualification of graduation.
Admittedly, the present was a recruitment for Level I and the required qualification was of Senior Secondary. There being no amendment introduced in the minimum qualifications pertaining to classes 1 to 5 which has been mentioned in sub clause (i) of para 1, the amendment, if any, would even otherwise not affect the present petitioner or the qualification required for Senior Secondary Examination. It is clear on record that the required qualification for the present recruitment in question was Senior Secondary with 50% marks for the candidates other than those who were governed by the Regulation of 2002. The petitioner was admittedly not having 50% marks in Senior Secondary Examination.
8. In view of the above observations, no case for review is made out and the review petition is hence, dismissed.
9. The pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J 35-Sachin/-
(Downloaded on 28/01/2024 at 08:04:44 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)