Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA, J
Suman Khokhariya - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
CW / 1195 / 2025
Decided On : 06-02-2025
(A) Writ Petition - Principles of Natural Justice - The petitioner challenged the rejection of her representation regarding appointment in TSP (ST) category, previously allowed by the court on grounds of natural justice - The court upheld the cancellation of her appointment based on the adjudication in a prior case. (Paras 1, 4, 18)
(B) Appointment - Merit and Eligibility - The court emphasized that the petitioner, despite being selected, could not claim entitlement over others whose petitions were allowed, as the process followed was lawful and just. (Paras 7, 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was appointed based on merit but had her appointment canceled following a court order favoring other candidates in a similar situation.
Findings of Court:
The court found no error in the cancellation of the petitioner’s appointment, affirming the legality of the process followed by the respondents.
Issues: The main issues were the legality of the cancellation of the petitioner’s appointment and the implications of the prior court ruling on her eligibility.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner’s ouster was a lawful consequence of the prior judgment, which prioritized the rights of other candidates.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
Order :
1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.11.2024 passed by the respondent No.4- Director, Elementary Education and Panchayati Raj (Elementary Education), Bikaner, whereby her representation made in furtherance of the order dated 21.10.2024 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in her earlier writ petition (being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16161/2024) has been rejected.
2. The facts in a nut-shell are that the petitioner’s name was recommended by the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Board’) for appointment on the post in question vide its communication dated 18.06.2024 in TSP (ST) category for district Sirohi.
3. Thereafter, an appointment order dated 28.07.2024 came to be issued in her favour, in furtherance whereof, she had joined the services. Hardly had the petitioner joined the services, her appointment came to be canceled by the respondent No.4 vide order dated 18.09.2024, while making reference of an order passed by this court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15497/2023.
4. The petitioner alongwith other similarly situated candidates preferred separate writ petitions before this Court, which came to be allowed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by common order dated 21.10.2024, essentially, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. While allowing the writ petitions, this Court had directed the respondents to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
5. The petitioner made a representation before the Director, Elementary Education, who vide order impugned dated 25.11.2024 rejected the same.
6. While rejecting the petitioner’s representation, the respondent No.4 noticed all relevant facts, including the adjudication made by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15497/2023 (Lila Kumar Meena vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), decided on 07.11.2023.
7. Learned counsel argued that the petitioner was duly selected on merit and was offered appointment without there being any mis-representation or fault/fraud on her part. He argued that the petitioner could not be ousted in a bid to accommodate other candidates whose writ petition came to be allowed by this Court on 07.11.2023.
8. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon co-ordinate Bench judgment dated 03.09.2024, rendered in the case of Gauri Shanker Jinger vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11875/2023) and submitted that the appointment bonafidely given to the petitioner is required to be saved.
9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
10. An appreciation of the factual backdrop reveals that Lila Kumari Meena and other similarly situated persons preferred writ petitions in bunch of petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15497/2023 and challenged non-consideration of their cases as per the norms fixed for the ST category candidates.
11. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court has been pleased to allow said bunch of writ petitions holding that the petitioners therein being TSP – ST - Divorcee’ candidates cannot be deprived of their rights to be declared successful as per the requisite cut-off marks (36%) set for the TSP – ST Category candidates.
12. While allowing the writ petitions, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that the petitioners therein having secured more than 36%, were entitled to be declared successful. Operative portion of the judgment dated 07.11.2023 rendered in the case of Lila Kumari Meena (supra) reads thus:-
“7. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that the criteria has been fixed for the different categories and once the petitioners are falling under the widow / divorcee category then they will be governed by serial no. 4 and cannot be said to be governed by serial no. 2 of the aforesaid table of advertisement dated 16.12.2022.
8. This Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties and l
The court upheld the cancellation of the petitioner's appointment, affirming that it was a lawful consequence of a prior ruling favoring other candidates in the same category.
The court upheld the cancellation of the petitioner's appointment based on adherence to prior judgments and principles of natural justice, affirming that due process was followed.
The cancellation of the petitioner's appointment was lawful, following principles of natural justice and prior court rulings affecting eligibility.
The court upheld the cancellation of the petitioner's appointment, affirming adherence to natural justice and merit-based evaluation as per established criteria.
The cancellation of the petitioner's appointment was lawful and followed due process, as it was a consequence of the acceptance of another writ petition.
The termination of the teacher was unlawful as it violated principles of natural justice, and the appointment was validly made under due process against a clear vacancy reserved for Scheduled Tribe.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the illegality of appointments made by the Panchayat Employment Committee, the entitlement of the writ petitioner to be offered appointment and con....
Candidates must fulfill requisite qualifications at the time of appointment; failure to do so renders the appointment void ab initio.
The vacancy caused due to the termination of services constitutes a fresh vacancy, and the Tribunal's directions exceeded its jurisdiction.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
