Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mohammad Hakim Khan vs The Rajasthan Public Service ... on 6 July, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8460/2020
1. Mohammad Hakim Khan S/o Bholu Khan, Aged About 36
Years, R/o Village Post Khunkhunu, Tehsil Didwana,
District Nagaur.
2. Vishram Singh Gurjar S/o Shri Bane Singh Gurjar, Aged
About 37 Years, R/o Village Post Dubbi, Tehsil Sikrai,
District Dausa.
3. Jitendra Kumar S/o Shri Bajrang Lal, Aged About 36
Years, R/o Village Post Ghoriwala Khurd, Tehsil Ghoribara
Khurd, District Jhunjhunu.
4. Sachdev Yadav S/o Shri Hari Singh Yadav, Aged About 34
Years, R/o Kuljapur, Post Baskripal Nagar, Tehsil
Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar.
5. Surendra Singh S/o Shri Mahendra Singh, Aged About 38
Years, R/o Village Banwarla, Tehsil Degana, District
Nagaur.
6. Arvinder Singh S/o Shri Rohitashava Bhakar, Aged About
46 Years, R/o Ward No. 10, Sharan Market, Adarsh
Market, Adarsh Nagar, Kotpurtali, Jaipur
7. Pawan Kumar Shortia S/o Shri Prem Prakash Shortia,
Aged About 43 Years, R/o Deopuri, Ajmer Madanganj,
Kishangarh, Rajasthan, Ajmer
8. Dharmendra Poonia S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Pooniya,
Aged About 37 Years, R/o Ward No. 12, Dd Colony,
Rajgarh, Sadulpur, Churu.
9. Chuna Ram Choudhary S/o Shri Bhomaram Choudhary,
Aged About 40 Years, R/o Near B M Mid Enclave Cr,
Raimalwara, Jodhpur.
10. Ugan Singh Gurjar S/o Shri Ratanlal Gurjar, Aged About
42 Years, R/o Vidarkhya Ki Dhani, Kankar, Tehsil
Gangapur City, Bidarkha, District Sawaimadhopur.
11. Abdul Ajij Khan S/o Shri Samudra Khan, Aged About 37
Years, R/o 189 Talai Ka Bas, Nimbi Kalan, Nimbi Khurd,
Nagaur.
12. Sunil Kumar Vishnoi S/o Shri Sahiram Bishnoi, Aged
About 38 Years, R/o Munjasar, District Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
(2 of 4) [CW-8460/2020]
13. Omprakash Bajya S/o Shri Hanuman Singh, Aged About
37 Years, R/o Syotya Ka Bas, Sihot Badi, District Sikar,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
2. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
Ajmer.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Government Of
Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Mathur
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hemant Choudhary
Mr. Khet Singh
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Judgment
06/07/2021
(1) 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.
(2) 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
(3 of 4) [CW-8460/2020]
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.
(3) 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.
(4) 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.
(5) Mr. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
RPSC 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.
(6) In the opinion of this Court, once the State Government itself
has issued a clarificatory circular dated 21.5.2019 and clarified its
stand about the notification dated 17.4.2018, the respondent-
RPSC- a recruiting agency is bound by the same. It cannot take a
contrary view.
(7) 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.
(8) 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
(4 of 4) [CW-8460/2020]
intimation to the concerned petitioner, against which, such
petitioner's right to take legal remedies shall stand reserved.
(9) Needfull be done within a period of four weeks from today.
(10) The writ petition as well as all pending interlocutory
applications are disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
307-CPGoyal/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
