S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.2726/2014. Guddi Paliwal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Order dated 04/09/2014 1/4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. :: ORDER
:: S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.2726/2014. Guddi Paliwal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order ::::
04. h September, 2014. PRESENT HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Appearance: None present for the petitioner. None present for the respondents. -- BY THE COURT:
1. The lawyers are observing strike which is contrary to various Supreme Court decisions. Name of Mr. Pramendra Bohra, counsel for the petitioner is shown in the cause list.
2. The case is listed in today's cause list at Serial No.22 in the category “for admission with notice served-reply filed”.. None is present on behalf of petitioner, and the respondents. Perused the record.
3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, Guddi Paliwal W/o Om Ram Paliwal, on 07.04.2014 and has sought following relief(s): - “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.2726/2014. Guddi Paliwal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Order dated 04/09/2014 2/4 record of the case may be called for and by appropriate order, writ or direction:
1. The respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Aanganbadi Karyakarta and they may be restrained to appoint the respondent no.6 on the said post at Gram Panchayat Mandali, Panchayat Samiti Balotra, District Barmer.
2. That any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deemed to be fit may kindly be granted in his favour.
3. That writ petition may be allowed with costs.”. 4. Upon issuance of the notices, the respondents, Gram Panchayat and the private respondent No.6, Smt. Sharda have filed reply to the writ petition.
5. The petitioner has prayed for directing the respondents to consider her case for appointment as 'Aanganward Worker' in the respondent Gram Panchayat Mandali. According to the petitioner, she was more qualified to be so appointed, whereas the private respondent No.6, namely, Smt. Sharda, was not so qualified, was given such appointment.
6. Having perused the record and gone through the averments made in the writ petition, this Court is satisfied that these disputed questions of facts cannot be gone into writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.2726/2014. Guddi Paliwal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Order dated 04/09/2014 3/4 Court in the case of Harsha Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP No.4060/2010, decided on 14.05.2010) reported in 2010 (3) RLW2763has held that for determination of questions of facts viz. qualification, place etc. for consideration of case for appointment as 'Aanganwardi Worker', the appropriate remedy is to file civil suit before the competent civil court, where the facts alleged can be established with valid and relevant evidence. The relevant extract of the said order reads as under: -
“10. This Court after hearing the arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner, is of the considered opinion that such questions of fact fraught with the consequence of the appointment of a person either to be cancelled or maintained and whether such appointments should be given to the petitioner in preference over private respondent or not, and whether the resolution of Gram Sabha can be said to be valid or not; and whether there are any bias or not etc., are all questions which are required to be determined on the basis of properly led evidence, which is required to be proved in accordance with provisions of Evidence Act in a competent Civil Court. In such circumstances simply based on original or photocopies of certain documents, supported by affidavit in writ jurisdiction, cannot be accepted as gospel truths and proved evidence before a Court in extraordinary jurisdiction. Consequently, the writ S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.2726/2014. Guddi Paliwal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Order dated 04/09/2014 4/4 petition is dismissed, as in the opinion of this Court, petitioner has an alternative remedy of approaching the civil Court under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code.
11. This Court is further of the opinion that remedy by way of civil suit will be more appropriate and more easily accessible for the petitioner in a rural background and her likes case. The civil courts are spread all over the State and according to concept "justice at the door Steps", the civil courts are more readily available and accessible to these petitioners and, therefore, not only from the angle of questions of facts involved in the present writ petition, which are required to be established and determined, but also for the reason of more appropriate remedy for the petitioners, they are relegated to the civil courts.
12. In the result, the writ petitions dismissed with no order as to costs.”. 6. Accordingly, the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot be invoked for determination of disputed questions of facts. The writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith. (Dr. VINEET KOTHARI), J.
DJ/- 22