Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1496 (RAJ)

Vinay Prabha Chawda v. State of Rajasthan

2019-05-14

ARUN BHANSALI

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by judgment of this Court in Priyanka Menaria v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16664/2018, decided on 11.04.2019. 2. In the case of Priyanka Menaria (supra), this Court inter-alia came to the following conclusion:- "In view of the above philosophy carved out by the Division Bench and the purport of the Rule as noticed hereinbefore regarding the candidates having studied subjects in their graduation, it cannot be said that if the petitioner had studied Banking and Business Economics, she would be ineligible for grant of appointment for the subject Social Science. The syllabus (Annex.13) produced by the petitioner fortifies the contention of having studied Economics as such during course of her graduation and, therefore, the action of the respondents in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner by mere reference to the fact that the mark-sheets produced by the petitioner indicated Banking and Business Economics instead of Economics, cannot be sustained. The above aspect also finds support from the fact that for subject Science the candidates having studied Bio-Technology and Bio-Chemistry have been held eligible, which are also specialized subjects within broader subject Science and, therefore, as the petitioner has studied Banking & Business Economics, the same can very well be treated as part of Economics. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. It is held that the petitioner, who has studied Banking and Business Economics in her graduation (B.Com) would be eligible for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr. III (Level-II) in subject Social Science. The respondents would take steps for according appointment to the petitioner, in case, the petitioner is found otherwise eligible. The petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits regarding her seniority etc. However, monetary benefits would be paid to the petitioner from the date of her appointment. Needful may be done by the respondents within a period of four weeks from today." 3. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in position to controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the subject matter as well as facts of the present case are similar to the case of Priyanka Menaria (supra). 4. Needful may be done by the respondents within a period of four weeks from today." 3. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in position to controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the subject matter as well as facts of the present case are similar to the case of Priyanka Menaria (supra). 4. In view of the above fact situation, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed with similar directions as given in the case of Priyanka Menaria (supra).