HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15000/2021

Sumitra Devi W/o Pawan Kumar Mehtar, Aged About 41 Years,

By Caste Harijan, R/o Harijan Basti, Ward No. 30, Post

Ratangarh, District Churu (Raj.) 331022

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department

Of Local Self Government, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2.

The Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Ratangarh Dist.

Churu (Raj.)

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr.Naresh Tak for Mr.Sunil Joshi

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Utkarsh Singh for

Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

26/10/2021

1.

In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant

caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court,

for the safety of all concerned.

2.

Issue notice. Mr. Utkarsh Gawala assistant to Mr. Sunil

Beniwal, learned Additional Advocate General is directed to accept

notice on behalf of the respondents, which he accepts. Hence, the

service is complete.

3.

Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the

present controversy is covered by the judgment rendered by this

Court in Rakesh Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Civil

Writ Petition No.5709/2018, decided on 26.04.2018); the

(2 of 5)

[CW-15000/2021]

said judgment reads as under:

“1.

Issue notice. Dr. Pratishtha Dave, learned

Government Counsel is directed to accept notice on

behalf of the respondents. Hence, service is complete.

2.

With the consent of learned counsel for the

parties, the matter has been heard finally.

3.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the

following prayers:

“A. By an appropriate writ, order or directions, the respondents may be

directed to grant appointment to the petitioner on the post of Safai

Employee with all consequential benefits.

B. Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deemed just and

proper be passed in favour of the petitioner.

C. Costs of this petition may kindly be allowed to the petitioner.”

4.

The brief facts as noticed by this Court are that

the petitioner had participated in the recruitment process

held by the Municipal Board, Bidasar for the post of Safai

Karamchari vide recruitment process, 2012 in accordance

with the Rajasthan Municipalities (Safai Employees

Service) Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules

of 2012). The petitioner being an eligible candidate, was

accordingly selected for the post of Safai Karamchari. After

such selection of the petitioner, the respondent No.2

constituted a committee to verify the number of children

born after 01.06.2002 to each selected candidate. The

committee submitted its report wherein it was observed

that the petitioner is having more than two children after

01.06.2002. Thereafter, the respondents issued

appointment orders to the selected candidates but the

petitioner was not given appointment on account of his

name appearing in the list of persons having the third child

after 01.06.2002.

(3 of 5)

[CW-15000/2021]

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has

submitted that the post of Safai Karamchari is governed

by the Rules of 2012 and as per such Rules, there is no

denial of appointment on account of more than two

children after 01.06.2002.

6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further

shown that the Hon’ble Division Bench has already decided

the issue in

D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ)

No.703/2016 (State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Smt.

Indira Devi) decided on 25.10.2016, wherein the

Hon’ble Division Bench has held that the candidate cannot

be denied his appointment on the ground of having more

than two children after 01.06.2002. The judgment reads

as under:

“The present appeal assails order dated 05.11.2015 allowing

S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2703/2015. The learned Single Judge held that

the stipulation in the advertisement that