1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :::: JUDGMENT 1 SBCWP NO 4960/2008 SANT RAM SHARMA & ORS Vs. STATE & ORS 2 SBCWP NO 5269/2008 HETRAM GODARA Vs. STATE & ORS 3 SBCWP NO 5272/2008 DEVSI RAM DUDI & ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS 4 SBCWP NO 5559/2008 GANPAT RAM & ANR Vs. STATE & ORS 5 SBCWP NO 5561/2008 BALTEJ SINGH Vs. STATE & ORS 6 SBCWP NO 5812/2008 NARAYAN LAL & ORS Vs. STATE & ORS 7 SBCWP NO 6019/2008 KRISHNA KUMARI Vs. STATE & ORS 8 SBCWP NO 6233/2008 GOKUL DAS Vs. STATE & ORS 9 SBCWP NO 6737/2008 RAMCHANDER Vs. STATE & ORS 10 SBCWP NO 6759/2008 SMT. ABIDA QUADRI Vs. STATE & ORS 11 SBCWP NO 7277/2008 SMT. SIMERJEET KAUR Vs. STATE & ORS 12 SBCWP NO 8730/2008 KUMARI ANJU SHARMA Vs. STATE & ORS 13 SBCWP NO 9291/2008 SMT. SADHANA JOSHI Vs. STATE & ORS 14 SBCWP NO 9412/2008 SMT. SADHANA JAIN Vs. STATE & ORS 15 SBCWP NO 10166/2008 RANJU BALA Vs. STATE & ORS 16 SBCWP NO 5120/2009 SMT. HEMLATA KANWAR CHUNDAWAT Vs. STATE & ORS 17 SBCWP NO 5325/2009 PREM SINGH SISODIA Vs. STATE & ANR 18 SBCWP NO 1053/2010 ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE & ORS 19 SBCWP NO 1222/2010 MOHAN LAL DHOLI Vs. STATE & ORS 20 SBCWP NO 1265/2010 KAN SINGH & ORS Vs. STATE & ORS 21 SBCWP NO 1268/2010 NASIR ALI Vs. STATE & ORS 22 SBCWP NO 1288/2010 LALITA VERMA Vs. STATE & ORS 23 SBCWP NO 1305/2010 GOTAM LAL PATIDAR Vs. STATE & ORS 24 SBCWP NO 1308/2010 SHANKER LAL Vs. STATE & ORS 25 SBCWP NO 1342/2010 JITENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE & ORS 26 SBCWP NO 1358/2010 RAKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE & ORS 27 SBCWP NO 1362/2010 SMT. KAMLESH SOLANKI Vs. STATE & ORS 28 SBCWP NO 1367/2010 RAM PRAKASH Vs. STATE & ORS 29 SBCWP NO 1500/2010 NECHAL DASS & ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS 30 SBCWP NO 1650/2010 RAJESH KUMAR VYAS Vs. STATE & ORS 31 SBCWP NO 1651/2010 BHARAT LAL SHRIMALI Vs. STATE & ORS 32 SBCWP NO 1677/2010 SHYAMA DEVI Vs. STATE & ORS 33 SBCWP NO 1745/2010 SHERA RAM CHOUHAN Vs. STATE & ORS 34 SBCWP NO 1773/2010 RAMJAN KHAN & ORS Vs. STATE & ORS 35 SBCWP NO 1901/2010 ANIL KUMAR PUROHIT Vs. STATE & ORS 36 SBCWP NO 1902/2010 DEVI LAL PALIWAL Vs. STATE & ORS 37 SBCWP NO 2085/2010 SMT. ANUPAMA JAIN Vs. STATE & ORS 38 SBCWP NO 2741/2010 SMT. BEENA VAISHNAV Vs. STATE & ORS 39 SBCWP NO 2825/2010 MALA RAM VISHNOI Vs. STATE & ANR 40 SBCWP NO 2884/2010 PUNIT DOSI Vs. STATE & ORS 41 SBCWP NO 2885/2010 MAHENDRA SINGH RAO Vs. STATE & ORS 42 SBCWP NO 2886/2010 VIJAY SINGH RAO Vs. STATE & ORS 43 SBCWP NO 2904/2010 JAGDISH CHANDRA PATIDAR Vs. STATE & ORS 44 SBCWP NO 2939/2010 HEMA VYAS & ANR. Vs. STATE & ORS 45 SBCWP NO 2976/2010 SATYA NARAIN SHARMA Vs. STATE & ORS 46 SBCWP NO 3034/2010 KAMLESH KUMAR VYAS Vs. STATE & ORS 47 SBCWP NO 3036/2010 SUMITRA SINGH Vs. STATE & ORS 48 SBCWP NO 3054/2010 JAY SINGH TAK Vs. STATE & ORS 2 49 SBCWP NO 3055/2010 DINESH SONI & ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS 50 SBCWP NO 3066/2010 VIJAY SINGH Vs. STATE & ORS 51 SBCWP NO 3144/2010 HANUMAN PRASAD & ANR Vs. STATE & ORS 52 SBCWP NO 3146/2010 MAHENDRA SINGH BHATI Vs. STATE & ORS 53 SBCWP NO 3341/2010 SMT. ASHA RANI BAYA Vs. STATE & ORS 54 SBCWP NO 3342/2010 SHARDA MEENA Vs. STATE & ORS 55 SBCWP NO 3344/2010 DHARAM NARAYAN MEENA Vs. STATE & ORS 56 SBCWP NO 3350/2010 REKHA SHARMA Vs. STATE & ORS 57 SBCWP NO 6408/2008 VIRENDER KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE & ORS 58 SBCWP NO 9482/2008 SMT. INDRA VAISHNAV Vs. STATE & ORS 59 SBCWP NO 10929/2009 MANGILAL VS. STATE & ORS 60 SBCWP NO 3129/2010 DILIP KUMAR AMETA VS. STATE & ORS 61 SBCWP NO. 3152/2010 ANIL MEIDA VS. STATE & ORS 63 SBCWP NO 3427/2010 CHHOGA RAM VS. STATE & ORS 64 SBCWP NO 3428/2010 BALWANT SINGH CHARAN VS. STATE & ORS Date of Order dated 5.4.2010 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. S/Sh. Rajesh Choudhary, PR Mehta, SP Sharma, LK Purohit, VK Sharma, BN Kalla, Rahul Soni, PS Chundawat, Harish Purhoit, BL Bhati, RK Charan, PS Bhati, Pintu Pareek, RC Joshi, Ravindra Singh, Hemant Parmar, Mukesh Rajpuroht, MS Godara, Shambhoo Singh, Ajay Vyas, RS Choudhary, Mahendra Trivedi, Vinay Jain, BL Choudhary, RK Arora, P Nayak, Sukesh Bhati, S. Saruparia, BS Deora, HS Sidhu, Arjun Purohit, Sanjay Nahar, Rajendra Charan, Manish Pitalia, D. Kawadia and Rakesh Matoria,for the petitioner(s). Mr.RL Jangid, Addl. Advocate General with Mr.Rajesh Bhati and Mr.Nimesh Suthar for the respondent-State. <><><> Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the controversy involved in these writ petitions has already been decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 27.1.2010 delivered in SBCWP No.8497/2008 Manglaram & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. which was decided with 3 other connected writ petitions. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the present writ petitions may also be decided in the light of the decision dated 27.1.2010 and same directions may be issued. Learned counsel for the State submitted that there are several objections which are (i) the person who gave birth to child after cut off date and who had two children already is not an eligible candidate, (ii) some of the candidates were lacking experience, (iii) some of the candidates were over age and (iv) some of the candidates claimed benefit on the basis of their experience of working as Prerak. So far as other cases are concerned, the similar directions can be issued in the light of the decision given in judgment dated 27.1.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in fact there is no necessity to go into all above objections in view of the direction no.2 given by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 27.1.2010, which clearly provides that those petitioners who are not found to be eligible for any other reason then reasons may be assigned and be communicated to each of the petitioner so that if he feels aggrieved, he may avail the remedy under the law obviously for redressal of his grievance. It is also submitted that for completion of process three month's time has already been granted by the order of this court dated 27.1.2010. Therefore, all these writ petitions may also be disposed of wherein the above objections of State are there. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and in view of the fact that this court has already decided the controversy and issued directions to the respondents, therefore, these writ petitions are also disposed of in terms of 4 the said judgment dated 27.1.2010 and it is made clear that the State Government's any plea that candidature was rejected on the ground of birth of child after cut off date to a candidate who had two children already, the candidature was rejected on the ground of lack of experience required, the candidate was over age and the candidate could not have been given relief because the experience gained while serving as Prerak is not fulfilling the requisite qualification for the appointment to the post of Prabodak are also the reasons already included in the directions issued by this Court in judgment dated 27.1.2010 in second direction. Therefore and otherwise also, there is no reason to deny opportunity to the petitioners for submitting their representation with respect to any objection referred above also so that their objection can be decided by the respondents in accordance with rules applicable for the purpose of giving appointment on the post of Prabodak. Hundreds of writ petitions have been decided by this Court (Jaipur Bench) by order dated 27.1.2010 passed in SBCWP No.4053/2008 (Bhupesh Kumar & Ors. vs. STATE. & Ors.) along with 197 connected writ petitions and following that decision, this Court (by me) also allowed hundreds of writ petitions by various orders, one of the orders being order dated 10.2.2010 passed in SBCWP No.930/2010 (Mahendra Singh Solanki vs. State & Ors.). After the judgment dated 27.1.2010 delivered in the case of Bhupesh Kumar (supra), there were some doubts in the mind of the respondents, therefore, it was clarified that all objections which could have been about the candidature of any of the petitioner may also be examined by the concerned authority which is already covered in para no.2 of the directions issued in 5 the judgment dated 27.1.2010 and was made clear further in the judgment dated 10.2.2010. However, learned AAG Mr.RL Jangid submits that during this process, the concerned authority is required to examine the genuineness of the documents as well as will have to examine the effect of various judgments and it will be difficult for the concerned authority to interpret the judgments. It is also submitted that some of the petitioners may have filed different documents in the writ petition itself than the documents which have been submitted before the concerned authority for obtaining the appointment on the post of Prabhodhak. Since some of the judgments have already been referred in the judgment dated 27.1.2010 and have been quoted also making the legal position clear, therefore, there cannot be any difficulty for the concerned authority in following the decisions of this Court referred above and also the decisions which have been passed subsequently, if produced by the candidate, if his case is covered by any other judgment. So far as genuineness of the documents is concerned, that is to be examined by the authority concerned and otherwise also, that is the duty of the concerned authority before giving any appointment. The documents which have already been submitted along with the application for appointment shall be considered by the authority concerned and he may also look into the genuineness of the documents and for that purpose, this Court do not find any reason to issue directions to the concerned authority and at the cost of repetition, it is stated that in every case of appointment, it is the duty of the concerned authority to examine all the relevant documents before giving appointment in 6 Government service. Therefore, this issue can be well examined by the concerned authority case wise instead of deciding these questions of facts here in writ jurisdiction straightaway as in the writ petitions, photostat copies of the documents are filed wherein there may be some misprint or discrepancy and the officer may look into the original documents to find out the genuineness of the documents. It is also made clear that the directions issued in the judgments dated 27.1.2010 and subsequently directing the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioners, apply to those candidates who submitted their applications in time pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.5.2008. In view of the above reasons, these writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the same directions as given in judgment dated 27.1.2010 and it is made clear that the petitioners will be free to submit their representation within a period of two week's time so that the entire exercise may be completed within the time granted by the judgment dated 27.1.2010. Directions as given in judgment dated 27.1.2010: (i) Respondents are directed to first prepare list of writ petitioners whose applications were received by the respondents in respective districts, and who were not called for interview for the reasons that there was summer break resulting in discontinuance of experience for five years, or experience certificate has not been verified, may be called for interview and this exercise be completed within two months; and simultaneously, petitioners may also contact the office of the concerned authority; and (ii) such of petitioners who are not found to be eligible for any other reason, may be assigned and communicated to each of them, to which if he feels 7 aggrieved, will be free to avail of remedy under the law. (iii) After completion of exercise referred to in para (i) &(ii) (supra), further process be initiated for finalizing merit list of respective districts and such petitioners may be considered for appointment if find place in order of merit in their respective district against advertised vacancies including those duly revised by subsequent corrigendum to advertisement dated 31.5.2008, within a period of three months thereafter in accordance with Rules, 2008 and in the light of judgments of this court (supra). The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners are also directed to submit the court fee of Rs.25/- for each of the petitioners in case it is a joint writ petition and certified copy of this order may be issued to the petitioners only subject to payment of this Court fee. [PRAKASH TATIA], J. mlt/s.phophalia/cpgoyal 8 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. Date of Order dated 5.4.2010 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. S/Sh. Rajesh Choudhary, PR Mehta, SP Sharma, LK Purohit, VK Sharma, BN Kalla, Rahul Soni, PS Chundawat, Harish Purhoit, BL Bhati, RK Charan, PS Bhati, Pintu Pareek, RC Joshi, Ravindra Singh, Hemant Parmar, Mukesh Rajpuroht, MS Godara, Shambhoo Singh, Ajay Vyas, RS Choudhary, Mahendra Trivedi, Vinay Jain, BL Choudhary, RK Arora, P Nayak, Sukesh Bhati, S. Saruparia, BS Deora, HS Sidhu, Arjun Purohit, Sanjay Nahar, Rajendra Charan, Manish Pitalia, D. Kawadia and Rakesh Matoria,for the petitioner (s). Mr.RL Jangid, Addl. Advocate General with Mr.Rajesh Bhati and Mr.Nimesh Suthar for the respondent-State. <><><> This writ petition is disposed of. [see separate judgment in SBCWP No.4960/2008- Sant Ram Sharma & Ors Vs. State & Ors., decided today itself, i.e., 5.4.2010. By order Court Master.