VINOD KUMARI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 27. 11. 1997 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent No. 2 the District Establishment Committee, Zila Parishad, Churu be directed to allot the petitioner to any Panchayat Samiti within its jurisdiction (Churu (District) for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr. III and the respondents be further directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of Teacher Gr. III on and from the date persons lower in merit list to the petitioner have been appointed, with all consequential benefits.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner as put forward by her in this writ petition is as follows :- THE petitioner passed her Secondary School Examination from the Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer in the year 1987, a copy of the mark-sheet is marked as Annex. 1. THEreafter, the petitioner passed her Higher Secondary School Examination from the Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer in the year 1989, a copy of the mark-sheet is marked as Annex. 2. THEreafter, the petitioner passed her S. T. C. Examination conducted by the Education Department of Government of Rajasthan in the year 1993 and a copy of the mark-sheet is marked as Annex. 3. THE further case of the petitioner is that she is a resident of village Lohasana Chota, Tehsil and District Churu. A copy of the certificate of residence issued by the Gram Panchayat, Lohasana Bada is marked as Annex. 4. According to the petitioner, she was married to Vijaypal, who is resident of Jhunjhunu district, in the year 1995. However, on account of some disputes, the petitioner is still residing with her father in the village Lohasana Chota. THE further case of the petitioner is that an advertisement No. 11/1997 was issued by the respondent No. 2 District Establishment Committee, Zila Parishad, Churu inviting applications for selection to the post of Teacher Gr. III in the Panchayat Samities situated in the jurisdiction of the respondent No. 2 and in pursuance of the said advertisement, the petitioner applied for the post of Teacher Gr. III and she was called for interview vide letter dated 27. 5. 1997, a copy of which is marked as Annex. 5. THE further case of the petitioner is that she appeared in the interview on 5. 6. 1997 and a certificate to this effect was issued from the office of the respondent No. 2 District Establishment Committee and a copy of which is marked as Annex. 6. THE further case of the petitioner is that her name was placed at serial No. 70 in the merit list (Annex. 8), but the persons junior to her have been appointed on the post of Teacher Gr. III and the petitioner has been denied such appointment. According to the petitioner, in all persons upto 128 in the merit list have been given appointment, but the petitioner has not been given appointment. THE further case of the petitioner is that she was not being given appointment because at the time when the advertisement was issued, she was not resident of Churu District as she had married to Vijaypal, who is resident of District Jhunjhunu. THE further case of the petitioner is that even after her marriage with Vijaypal, she is residing with her father as there were some disputes between her and her hus- band Vijaypal and furthermore, the marriage does not change her residence of District. THErefore, denial of appointment to the petitioner on the ground that she was not resi- dent of Churu District, but was resident of Jhunjhunu District because of her marriage with Vijaypal, who is resident of Jhunjhunu District, is violative of Arts. 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this writ petition with the prayers as stated above. A reply to the merit petition was filed by the respondents and they have made preliminary objection and other following submissions :- (i) That the term of select list prepared in pursuance of the advertisement No. 11/97 had already expired, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim appointment to the post of Teacher Gr. III in pursuance of the said advertisement No. 11/97. (ii) That after the marriage of the petitioner with Vijaypal, who is resident of Jhunjhunu District, she became the resident of Jhunjhunu District and she is not the resident of Churu District and therefore, she was rightly denied appointment. Furthermore, the respondents have placed reliance on condition No. 8. 1 of the guidelines (Annex. 7) where it has been stated that married women would be treated as hailing from the District where their husbands live. Thus, from this point of view also, the petitioner was rightly denied appointment. (iii) That the submission of the petitioner that she is residing with her father and not with her husband has not been proved by the petitioner and thus, there is no material to prove that fact. Hence, it was prayed that the writ petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed.

(3.) THERE is also no dispute on the point that otherwise the petitioner is entitled to appointment on the post of Teacher Gr. III in pursuance of the advertisement No. 11/97, but because she was married to one Vijaypal, who is resident of Jhunjhunu District and she is not the resident of Churu District, she was not offered appointment.