Shiv Prasad Regar vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 4876 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR (1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2171/2021

1. Dharmendra Choudhary S/o Kesha Ram, Aged About 32 Years, Village Post Buchkala Tehsil Pipar City District Jodhpur

2. Ganpat Singh S/o Mool Singh, Aged About 30 Years, Chanakya Nagar, Mandore Road, Jodhpur

3. Mahendra Singh Rajpurohit S/o Jor Singh, Aged About 33 Years, Village Post Bara Khurd Tehsil Pipar City District Jodhpur

4. Sandeep Siyag S/o Chandra Ram, Aged About 29 Years, Saran Nagar, Banar, Jodhpur

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Director, National Health Mission Medical Health And Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan Jaipur

----Respondents

(2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2226/2021

1. Shiv Prasad Regar S/o Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Post Harsolaw Tehsil Merta City District Nagour.

2. Hathi Ram S/o Nena Ram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Panwaro Ka Bas Village Post Kosana Vaya Pipar City District Jodhpur (Raj.).

3. Moti Lal S/o Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Post Harsolaw Tehsil Merta City District Nagour.

4. Ganpat Ram Jatiya S/o Heera Ram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Post Balarwa Tehsil Tinwari District Jodhpur.

5. Sawai Ram Phulwariya S/o Atma Ram Phulwariya, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Post Daijar District Jodhpur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Medical, Health And Family Welfare Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director, National Health Mission, Medical, Health And Family Welfare Department, National Health Mission Headquarter, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.

                                                              ----Respondents




                                           (2 of 3)               [CW-2171/2021]



For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. Anand Purohit assisted by Mr.
                                Mayank Roy
                                Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. Vandana Bhansali



                     JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                     Order

22/02/2021

1. Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the

order dated 02.09.2019 rendered by Coordinate Bench of this

Court in case of Sarita Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil

Writ Petition No.12692/2019) and submits that transparency and

fairness demands the respondents to declare cut-off marks and

individual marks obtained by the candidate(s), while calling the

candidates for document verification.

2. Ms. Vandana Bhansali, learned Govt. counsel appearing for

the respondent-State submits that he petitioner cannot claim relief

in consonance with the adjudication made by this Court in case of

Sarita Kumari (supra) inasmuch as Sarita Kumari's case involved

recruitment for the permanent posts, whereas the present

recruitment is in relation to contractual post.

3. Having regards to facts and circumstances of the case, this

Court is of the view that the fact that the recruitment is qua

regular posts or for contractual post, the position of law does not

change as fairness and transparency is imperative on part of the

recruitment agency in both the situation. The relevant portion of

the order dated 02.09.2019 reads thus :-

"This Court in Dinesh Kataniya V. The State of Rajasthan : S.B.C.W.P. No.9828/2019 by its order dated 12.07.2019, wherein also for recruitment to the post of Nurse Gr.-II similar

(3 of 3) [CW-2171/2021]

procedure was sought to be adopted by the respondents therein, came to the following conclusion and ordered for issuance of cut off :-

The reason indicated in this regard, though may have some substance, however, for the sake of requirement of having transparency in the recruitment process, wherein the candidates must be well aware of the cut-off regarding those called for document verification, so that the candidate can judge his own status, whether he has rightly not been called for by the respondents, it is necessary for the respondents to issue the cutoff.

Adopting the same reasoning, the respondent - RPSC is directed to declare the cut off in relation to the candidates, who have been called for document verification/eligibility checking category-wise through the list published on 19.07.2019 (Annexure-5)."

4. This being the position and following the judgment rendered

in case of Sarita Kumari(supra), the respondents are directed to

upload cut-off marks qua each of the category and declare

petitioner's result within a period of seven days from today.

5. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of.

6. Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.

7. Needless to observe that if any of petitioners' grievance still

persists, he/they will be free to approach this Court by taking

appropriate remedies.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 219-220-Amar/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)