1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :::: JUDGMENT 1 SBCWP NO.4976/2008 KAILASH CHANDRA MEENA & ORS Vs. STATE & ORS 2 SBCWP NO.4977/2008 MOHAN LAL MEGHWAL & ORS Vs. STATE & ORS 3 SBCWP NO.4978/2008 ROHIT KUMAR & ORS Vs. STATE & ORS 4 SBCWP NO.4979/2008 CHAMPA LAL & ORS Vs. STATE & ORS 5 SBCWP NO.4980/2008 BHIM SINGH RAJPUT & ORS Vs. STATE & ORS 6 SBCWP NO.4981/2008 DURGA SHANKAR & ANR Vs. STATE & ORS 7 SBCWP NO.5177/2008 SATISH KUMAR Vs. STATE & ORS 8 SBCWP NO.5726/2008 VAINOOR Vs. STATE & ORS 9 SBCWP NO.5916/2008 SUKH PAL SINGH Vs. STATE & ORS 10 SBCWP NO.6045/2008 NOOR MOHD., Vs. STATE & ORS 11 SBCWP NO.8482/2008 SUGNA RAM DEWASI Vs. STATE & ORS 12 SBCWP NO.9860/2008 RAMSUKH BEDA Vs. STATE & ORS 13 SBCWP NO.10033/2008 HANUMANA RAM Vs. STATE & ORS 14 SBCWP NO.2274/2009 PARAS RAM Vs. STATE & ORS 15 SBCWP NO.4572/2009 SMT. PREM LATA JOSHI Vs. STATE & ORS 16 SBCWP NO.1722/2010 DILIP KUMAR DHOLI Vs. STATE & ORS 17 SBCWP NO.2109/2010 MOHD. RAZZAQ SHEIKH Vs. STATE & ORS 18 SBCWP NO.3112/2010 BABU LAL ACHARIYA & ANR Vs. STATE & ORS 19 SBCWP NO.3113/2010 BUDHA RAM CHOUDHARY & ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS 20 SBCWP NO.3132/2010 SOM PRAKASH CHHABRA Vs. STATE & ORS 21 SBCWP NO.3134/2010 SMT. DHANESHWARI JOSHI Vs. STATE & ORS 22 SBCWP NO.3300/2010 NARESH KUMAR RAO Vs. STATE & ORS 23 SBCWP NO.3367/2010 GAJENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE & ORS 24 SBCWP NO.3369/2010 SAVITA KUMARI Vs. STATE & ORS 25 SBCWP NO.3370/2010 SMT. LAXMI DASHORA Vs. STATE & ORS 26 SBCWP NO.3371/2010 MISS DEV KANYA Vs. STATE & ORS 27 SBCWP NO.3372/2010 SMT. SUMITRA SUKHWAL Vs. STATE & ORS 28 SBCWP NO.3373/2010 BHERU SINGH Vs. STATE & ORS 29 SBCWP NO.3424/2010 GOPAL RAM Vs. STATE & ORS 30 SBCWP NO.3551/2010 TEJA RAM Vs. STATE & ORS 31 SBCWP No.7094/2008 OM PRAKASH VS. STATE & ORS Date of Order dated 12.4.2010 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. S/Sh. PR Mehta, GJ Gupta, LK Purohit, Pankaj Gupta, MA Siddiqui, NR Choudhary, BN Kalla, Kamal Dave, RS Choudhary Harish Mathur, Rajat Dave, HS Choudhary, Vinod Choudhary, TRS Sodha, PS Chundawat, Vishal Jangid, Rajesh Shah and Kuldeep Mathur, for the petitioner(s). Mr.RL Jangid, Addl. Advocate General with Mr.Rajesh Bhati and Mr.Nimesh Suthar for the respondent-State. <><><> 2 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 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 3 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 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 4 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 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 5 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 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 6 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 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 7 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. Date of Order dated 12.4.2010 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. S/Sh. PR Mehta, GJ Gupta, LK Purohit, Pankaj Gupta, MA Siddiqui, NR Choudhary, BN Kalla, Kamal Dave, RS Choudhary Harish Mathur, Rajat Dave, HS Choudhary, Vinod Choudhary, TRS Sodha, PS Chundawat, Vishal Jangid, Rajesh Shah and Kuldeep Mathur, 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.4976/2008- Kailash Chandra Meena & Ors Vs. State & Ors., decided today itself, i.e. 12.4.2010. By order Court Master.