Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 720 (RAJ)

Roopwati Deora v. State Of Rajasthan

2023-03-27

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2023
JUDGMENT : (Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.) The lawyers are abstaining from the work due to strike. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: "It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ order or direction: (i) the impugned notification dated 16.10.2019 (Ann.7) passed by respondent no.2 and the list of the applicants dated 06.08.2019 (Ann.6) may kindly be declared highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and malafide one and same may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) the respondent authorities may kindly be restrained from handing over the charge of the post of Chairman, Child Welfare Committee, Jodhpur to the respondent no.5. (iii) The respondent authorities may kindly be directed to constitute the Child Welfare Committee, Johdpur in accordance with the list 30.07.2019 (Ann.5) by conducting fresh interview. (iv) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners." 3. As the pleaded facts and the record would reveal, vide advertisement dated 24.01.2019 issued by the respondent No.2, applications were invited, from social workers, for nomination as Chairman & four Members (out of which one must have been a female candidate and one candidate must have been a subject specialist, related to children), for the purpose of Constitution of the Child Welfare Committee, in District Jodhpur as well as in various other districts of the State; the last date for submission of the application form, as per the advertisement, was 11.02.2019. However, vide amended advertisement dated 01.03.2019, issued for the same purpose, the last date was extended from 11.02.2019, till 28.02.2019. 3.1 For the purpose of such nominations i.e. Chairman and Members of the Child Welfare Committee, the State Government, vide notification dated 11.06.2019, constituted the State Level Selection Committee, which proceeded with the selection process by holding the interviews for the nominations, as per the schedule, and finalized the nomination process. 3.2 After conclusion of the selection process, the Child Welfare Committee, Jodhpur and the private respondent No.5 was nominated as Chairman of the said Committee, vide the impugned notification dated 16.10.2019. 3.2 After conclusion of the selection process, the Child Welfare Committee, Jodhpur and the private respondent No.5 was nominated as Chairman of the said Committee, vide the impugned notification dated 16.10.2019. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been preferred, claiming the afore quoted reliefs, while alleging, amongst others, the nomination of the private respondent No.5 to be a backdoor entry, being contrary to the selection process for the nomination in question, as prescribed under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016, framed thereunder. 4. Smt. Roopwati Deora, petitioner No.1 present in person submitted that the respondent No.3, vide communication dated 30.07.2019, addressed to the respondent No.4, informed that for Jodhpur District, 95 applications were received for the nominations as Chairman and Members; subsequently, however, a list of 96 candidates came to be published on 06.08.2019; vide notification dated 16.10.2019, the respondent no.5 has been nominated as Chairman, which in the given facts, is highly illegal and unsustainable in the eye of law. 5. The petitioner in person further submitted that it is clear that the respondent no.5 has not submitted the application before the last date of submission of the application, but the respondent authorities illegally and without adopting the due process of selection, as prescribed in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Ideal Rules, 2016, nominated the respondent no. 5 as Chairman, Child Welfare Committee, Jodhpur. 6. On the other hand, Mr. AK Gaur, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Deepesh Beniwal, representing the respondents opposed the aforesaid submissions made by the petitioner in person, and submitted that 160 applications, in totality, were received (95 applications for Chairmen, Child Welfare Committee and 65 applications for Members of the Juvenile Justice Board); thus, the respondents received total 95 applications for the Child Welfare Committee and the same was forwarded to the office of the Director of the Department for Child Rights vide communication dated 29.03.2019, wherein the name of respondent no.5 was mentioned at serial no. 93. 7. He further submitted that the communication dated 30.07.2019 would reveal that the name of one Mr. 93. 7. He further submitted that the communication dated 30.07.2019 would reveal that the name of one Mr. Jitendra Achraya appeared at serial no.88 and 89, and thus, the name of said person was mistakenly repeated; where-after, the said bona fide mistake was corrected, total 94 applications were left; under such circumstances, the forms were again scrutinized and it was found that application form of respondent no.5- Dhanpat Raj Gujar did not receive due consideration. As per the respondents, thereafter communication dated 06.08.2019 along with amended list was issued, and thus, the allegation levelled by the petitioner in relation to the number of candidates is baseless and misconceived. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the last date of application form was extended till 28.02.2019 which later got extended till 15.03.2019. As per the respondents, the application form, as submitted by the respondent no.5 on 11.02.2019 for the post of Chairman of the Child Welfare Committee, was submitted within time. 9. Heard the petitioner present in person and the learned counsel for the respondents, as well as perused the record of the case. 10. This Court finds that the advertisement in question was issued on 24.01.2019, inviting applications for the post of Chairman and Members - Child Welfare Committee and Juvenile Justice Board, respectively. The date of submission of forms was extended and last date for submission of form, upon extension, was 15.03.2019. Thereafter, the meeting of State Selection Committee, so constituted for the process in question, was held on 30.07.2019, fixing the schedule for the interview for the aforementioned posts. Subsequently, vide communication dated 06.08.2019, the date of interview was changed; the respondent no. 2 after holding the interviews, issued a notification dated 16.10.2019, whereby the Child Welfare Committee, Jodhpur has been constituted, and the respondent no.5 has been nominated being the Chairman of the said committee. 11. This Court further finds that the respondent no. 5 submitted his application form on 11.02.2019 (Annexure-R/1) for the post of Chairman of the Child Welfare Committee. Therefore, the said application form was filed within the stipulated time, as notified by the respondent-Department, and thus, the respondent no. 5 was eligible for participating in the interview process, as conducted by respondent-Department. 12. This Court also finds that the communication dated 30.07.2019 clearly reveals that the name of one Mr. Therefore, the said application form was filed within the stipulated time, as notified by the respondent-Department, and thus, the respondent no. 5 was eligible for participating in the interview process, as conducted by respondent-Department. 12. This Court also finds that the communication dated 30.07.2019 clearly reveals that the name of one Mr. Jitendra Achraya was repeated due to bona fide mistake, as submitted by the respondents; after rectification and correction of the said mistake, the application forms were again scrutinized, and thereafter, the respondent no.5 was considered for interview process. Therefore, the action of the respondent-Department does not suffer from any legal infirmity. 13. In light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the given factual matrix, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioners in the present petition. 14. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.