Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SARITA JANGID versus STATE & ORS.

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SARITA JANGID v STATE & ORS. - CW Case No. 1747 of 2005 [2007] RD-RJ 1065 (23 February 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICTURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR.

ORDER

Sarita Jangid. Versus State of Rajasthan & ors.

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1747/2005

Date of Order: February 23, 2007

PRESENT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR

Mr. M.S. Singhvi, for the petitioner.

Mr. Rameshwar Dave, Deputy Govt. Advocate.

BY THE COURT:

By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to call her in interview for selection and appointment on the post of Teacher Grade II (English) in accordance with her merit in pursuance of the advertisement

Annx.4 dated 19-8-2003 by awarding 10 Bonus Marks on the ground of being a bonafide resident of the State of Rajasthan.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the petitioner possessed the qualification of

Senior Secondary with B.S.T.C., which she did in the year 1994 vide Annx.1. The petitioner was selected as Teacher Grade III by the Education Department of the State of Rajasthan vide order dated 2-6-1995 (Annx.2). Thereafter she was appointed as Teacher Grade III at the Government Girls Primary School,

Sidhmukh vide order dated 3-1-1996 and in pursuance thereto, she joined the duty on 5-2-1996 vide Annx.2/A. While continuing in service, the petitioner completed her Graduation in

Arts from Maharishi Dayanand Sarswati University, Ajmer and thereafter the Post Graduation in Arts in the year 2000. After obtaining the Degree in Education (B.Ed.) from Vardhaman

Mahaveer Open University, Kota in the year 2003 vide Annx.3, the petitioner applied for direct recruitment to the post of

Teacher Grade II (English), which is governed by the Rajasthan

Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 (for short, "the

Rules, 1971" hereinafter) in pursuance to advertisement issued by the respondent No.3 dated 19-8-2003 (Annx.4). The advertisement Annx.4 contains the criteria for determination of merit, which provides 75% marks for graduation, 25% for B.Ed., and 10 marks for bonafide resident of Rajasthan.

The controversy involved in the instant writ petition centres around allocation of 10 marks for bonafide resident of

Rajasthan. While preparing the merit of the petitioner, she was denied 10 marks for being a bonafide resident of Rajasthan, whereas according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner borned, got-up, obtained education and continued in the service in Rajasthan and, therefore, she, being a bonafide resident of Rajasthan, is entitled for allocation of 10 marks and if 10 marks are alloted to the petitioner, she comes higher in merit than those who have been selected and appointed.

In para 10 of the writ petition, the criteria for preparing the merit of the petitioner has been given, which runs under:-

Graduation 62% x 75% 46.50

(75% of total marks obtained)

B.Ed. 61% 25% 15.25

(25% of total marks obtained)

Experience (teaching) 5.00

Sports (State Level Certificate) 3.00

Resident of Rajasthan 10.00

------------

TOTAL MARKS 79.75

------------

The petitioner possesses the requisite marks of 79.75 and, thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, she is entitled to be considered and appointed on the post of

Teacher Grade II under the Rules, 1971.

The petitioner possesses the requisite qualification as provided in the advertisement Annx.4 for selection and appointment on the post in question. As noticed above, she possesses the Degree of B.A. (English) and thereafter Master's

Degree and B.Ed., from the recognized universities. She is a bonafide resident of Rajasthan as is evident from the fact stated above, where she was born, brought-up, obtained the education and thereafter appointed as Teacher Grade III by the State

Government in Education Department vide order dated 21-6- 1995 and since then she has been continuously serving in the

Education Department at various places in Rajasthan.

A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents stating therein that though the petitioner had submitted the certificate showing her to be a bonafide resident of

Rajasthan but in that certificate the name of her father was mentioned, whereas in the application form, the petitioner has shown the name of her husband Mr. Sankay Kumar Jangid, who, according to the learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the respondents,is a resident of Haryana State and, therefore, the petitioner has rightly been denied 10 marks provided for the bonafide resident of Rajasthan.

The ground, on which 10 marks have been denied to the petitioner, appears to be unfounded for the reason that right from her birth, the petitioner is bonafide resident of Rajasthan as she was born, got-up, undertook her education and has been serving with the respondents as Teacher Grade III in Rajasthan and thereafter applied for the post of Teacher Grade II (English) under the Rules, 1971 and till date of applying for the post in question, she has been continuously living in the State of

Rajasthan and has also submitted the certificate showing her to be a bonafide resident of Rajasthan. Merely because the petitioner is married to a person who is a bonafide resident of the State of Haryana, it will not take away her status to be a bonafide resident of Rajasthan.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of this Court in Vinod Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors., 2003 (3) WLC (Raj.) 579, wherein this Court held that residence in a State and District in the case cannot be a ground for discrimination in the matter of employment under the State and District in the present case. From this point of view, if there is any guidelines contrary to that, it would be violative of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India. In that case, the petitioner was a domicile of District Churu and this Court held that merely because she had married to a person who is resident of another

District, she cannot be deprived of the benefit of her parent

District i.e. Churu. From that point of view also, it was held that denial of appointment to the petitioner on the ground that she is now resident of another district (Jhunjhunu) is violative of

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

The decision of the learned Single Judge in Vinod

Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors.(supra) came to be challenged by the State before a Division Bench by way of filing

S.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.50/2004 { D.R. (J) }. The

Hon'ble Division Bench dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 23-3-2005 affirming the decision of the learned Single

Judge.

Otherwise also, taking the facts of the instant case, from the undisputed facts on record, it is clear that right from her birth till date, the petitioner has been residing in the State of

Rajasthan. She was born, got-up, pursued her study in the State of Rajasthan and thereafter she has been continuously serving as

Teacher Grade III in the State of Rajasthan. Therefore, viewed from any angle, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not a bonafide resident of Rajasthan. Therefore, the respondents fell in error in not awarding 10 marks allocated for the bonafide resident of Rajasthan. In the circumstances, therefore, the writ petition deserves to succeed.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to award 10 marks to the petitioner for being a bonafide resident of Rajasthan and prepare her merit accordingly; consider her case for appointment if she is otherwise found eligible, with all consequential benefits.

However, it is made clear that if the petitioner is found suitable and appointed on the post in question, she will be entitled for the notional benefits of seniority and fixation and shall be entitled for the salary from the date of her joining. This exercise be done within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The second stay petition stands disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.

(H.R. PANWAR), J. mcs


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.