Monday, 04, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Bala Ram Gurjar S/O Khamba Ram ... vs The State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 4043 Raj/2

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 4043 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 26 August, 2021

Rajasthan High Court
Bala Ram Gurjar S/O Khamba Ram ... vs The State Of Rajasthan on 26 August, 2021
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8559/2021
Bala Ram Gurjar S/o Khamba Ram Gurjar, Aged About 38 Years,
R/o Vpo Alanpura, Tehsil Bansur, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.        The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education
          Secretary, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2.        The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3.        Rajasthan Public        Service        Commission,        Through     Its
          Secretary, Ajmer.
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Pratap Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.F. Baig Mr. S. Zakawat Ali, AGC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

26/08/2021

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in

this writ petition has been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of

this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the matter of Rakesh

Kumar Swami & Ors. Vs. The Rajasthan Public Service

Commission & Ors. where-in on 05.07.2021 following order was

passed;

"(1) The present application had been initially filed by the three applicants seeking their impleadment in the present writ petition as respondents. (2) Dr. Nupur Bhati, learned counsel appearing for the applicants at the outset submits that the applicants nos.1 and 2 have already been selected and thus, she does not press the application on behalf of the said applicants.

(3) In view of the above, the application filed by the applicants nos.1 and 2 is dismissed as not pressed. The application is being considered for applicant No.3 Dalip Kumar Dhilan.

(4) Dr. Bhati, learned counsel, contends that if the petition is allowed in terms of the circular dated 21.05.2019 (Annex.2), the rights of the applicant No.3 will be adversely affected. According to her

(2 of 3) [CW-8559/2021]

the circular (Annex.2) issued by the State Government is not in conformity with the notification dated 17.4.2018, by which Rule 6B has been inserted in Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Ex-servicemen) Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' or 'the Rules of 1988') (5) In considered opinion of this Court, once the State Government has issued a circular and has given its own interpretation of the notification, the applicant cannot come in way of the petitioners who claim relief flowing from the circular issued by the State Government.

(6) The application is therefore, rejected. (7) Needless to observe that if the applicant wishes to challenge the circular on the grounds available to him, the disposal of the present application shall not come in his way.

SBCWP No.7393/2020:

(8) Mr. Mathur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners invited Court's attention towards the amendment brought in the Rules of 1988 vide notification dated 17.4.2018 and submitted that by way of Rule 6B, ex-servicemen, who have moved application for retirement have been permitted to take part in the recruitment process. (9) While maintaining that the petitioners, having resigned before submitting application forms are not only eligible for consideration, but also entitled to be offered appointment, learned counsel submitted that in light of circular dated 21.5.2019 (Annex.2) issued by the Personnel Department of the State Government, there remains no doubt about petitioners' eligibility. He argued that petitioners' case is squarely covered by the circular and thus, a direction be issued to the respondent - RPSC to consider their candidature in terms of the notification dated 17.4.2018 and circular dated 21.5.2019.

(10) Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that an additional affidavit has been filed by the petitioners, placing on record copies of the letters dated 5.8.2020 and 12.4.20212 issued by the State Government.

(11) He submitted that though petitioners' candidature has been considered by the respondent-RPSC in view of the interim order passed by this Court on 19.8.2020, however, for no reason (perhaps on account of pendency of the present writ petition) respondent - RPSC has not recommended their name.

(12) Mr. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondentRPSC argued that though the State Government has issued circular (Annex.2) dated 21.5.2019, yet doubt(s) regarding eligibility of the candidates is not yet clear.

(13) In the opinion of this Court, once the State Government itself has issued a clarificatory circular

(3 of 3) [CW-8559/2021]

dated 21.5.2019 and clarified its stand about the notification dated 17.4.2018, the respondentRPSC- a recruiting agency is bound by the same. It cannot take a contrary view. (14) The respondent-RPSC is, therefore, directed to consider petitioners' case in the light of notification dated 17.4.2018 and circular dated 21.5.2019 and recommend names of those petitioners, who according to these notification/circular are eligible and of course meritorious and otherwise eligible. (15) If respondent-RPSC is of the view that any of the petitioners is not eligible in the light of the notification dated 17.4.2018 and circular dated 21.5.2019, it shall pass a speaking order under the intimation to the concerned petitioner, against which, such petitioner's right to take legal remedies shall stand reserved.

(16) Needfull be done within a period of four weeks from today.

(17) The writ petition as well as all pending interlocutory applications are disposed of accordingly".

Counsel further submits that the writ petition may also be

disposed of in view of the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the matter of

Rakesh Kumar Swami & Ors. Vs. The Rajasthan Public

Service Commission & Ors.

Counsel for the respondent(s) opposed the writ petition.

In that view of the matter, I dispose of this writ petition with

a direction to the respondent(s) RPSC to consider the case of the

petitioner in the light of the notification dated 17.04.2018, circular

dated 21.05.2019 and pass speaking order under the intimation to

the petitioner against which the petitioner can take legal remedy

available to him under the law.

All pending applications stand disposed of.

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

CHARU SONI /118

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter