STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. TWARITA GEHLOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that in view of notification dated 21.10.2019 issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, amending the definition of candidates of Tribal Sub Plan Area (TSP Area) incorporated in the relevant Rules extending benefit of reservation of women marrying residents of TSP Area w.e.f. 16.06.2013, these Special Appeals preferred by the State Government against the judgment dated 14.12.2017 passed in a bunch of writ petitions have rendered infructuous. It is also submitted that similar Special Appeals No.1554/2018, 1938/2018 and 490/2019, and other similar special appeals have also been dismissed as having become infructuous by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court on different dates.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondents has, therefore, prayed that in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, these Special Appeals be dismissed as having become infructuous.

(3.) Mr M.S.Singhvi, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr Manish Vyas, learned Additional Advocate General though frankly admitted that similar special appeals have already been dismissed as having become infructuous by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court and rightly so because after issuance of the notification dated 21.10.2019, the controversy involved in these Special Appeals came to an end, but has submitted that some of the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment may prove detrimental to the interest of the State in other pending litigations, therefore, the State wants to contest those Special Appeals on that limited point. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has given a finding in the impugned judgment to the effect that if a lady of another region marries to a person of a particular region, for which certain benefits have been extended, she will also be entitled for all those benefits, which are extended to the residents of that area. It is argued that the observations of this effect made by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment are contrary to the principle laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions rendered in Valsamma Paul (Mrs.) vs. Cochin University and Ors., (1996) 3 SCC 545, Jayashri Bhaskar Gosavi vs. Vishwanath Krishnath Panke and Ors., (2016) 13 SCC 312 and Bir Singh vs. Delhi Jal Board and Ors., (2018) 10 SCC 312, wherein it is specifically held that benefits of reservation cannot be extended to the migrants from other States, where the benefit has been extended to a particular class. Learned Advocate General has, therefore, prayed that the observations of this effect made by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment may kindly be set aside or it may be kept open for the State Government to agitate this issue in appropriate cases or it may be observed that observations of the learned Single Judge of this effect may not come in the way of the right of the Government to oppose such claims.