Sunday, 10, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Nagendra Singh Daroga vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 11274 Raj

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 11274 Raj
Judgement Date : 22 July, 2021

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Nagendra Singh Daroga vs State Of Rajasthan on 22 July, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Mehta

(1 of 3) [CW-9137/2021]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9137/2021

Nagendra Singh Daroga S/o Parwat Singh Daroga, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Vpo Jhosava, Tehsil Galiyakot, District Dungarpur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chairman, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Staff Selection Board, Jaipur.

2. Rajasthan Skill And Livelihoods Development Corporation, J-B-A, Emi Campus, Jhalana Institutional Area, Jhalana Doongari, Jaipur Through Chairman.

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Chyan Bothra
For Respondent(s)         :



                     JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                 Judgment

22/07/2021

(1) By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has

challenged the communication dated 23.2.2021, whereby he has

been informed about rejection of his candidature citing that the

petitioner has produced a license to drive heavy vehicle dated

14.7.2020, whereas, the date of examination was 23.12.2019.

(2) The facts appertain are that Rajasthan Subordinate &

Ministerial Staff Selection Board issued an advertisement dated

16.9.2016 for filling up posts of Junior Instructor, which was

revised on 25.4.2018.

(3) The petitioner had submitted his application form for such

post on 15.10.2016.

(2 of 3) [CW-9137/2021]

(4) The advertisement dated 25.4.2018 aforesaid contained a

condition of having driving license for heavy motor vehicles,

though in the first advertisement dated 16.9.2016 there was no

such condition.

(5) The petitioner cleared written examination and was found

meritorious, whereafter he was called for document verification.

His name however did not find mention in the final select list.

(6) The petitioner, therefore, sought information under Right to

Information Act in this regard and was intimated vide

communication dated 23.2.2021 as under:

"vH;FkhZ Jh ukxsUnz flag dks foKfIruqlkj HkrhZ esa gSoh Oghdy Mz~kbZfoax ykbZlsal dh vfuok;Zrk FkhA mDrkuqlkj vH;FkhZ }kjk gSoh Oghdy Mz~kbZfoax ykbZlsal fnukad 14-07-2020 dk izLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk] tks fd ijh{kk dh fnukad 23-12- 2019 ds i'pkr~ dk gksus ds dkj.k vH;FkhZ dks nLrkost lR;kiu ny }kjk vik= fd;k x;k FkkA"

(7) Mr. Bothra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

argued that the petitioner appeared before the respondents and

showed his license but his candidature has been wrongly rejected.

He invited Court's attention towards Annex.7 (photostat copy of

driving license) and pointed out that petitioner's license was

issued on 31.1.2017, but however produced the same before the

respondents on 14.7.2020 instead of 10.7.2020, the date of

document verification.

(8) Learned counsel argued that since petitioner's license was

issued on 31.1.2017, the mere fact that he has produced the

license on 14.7.2020, cannot be a reason to reject his

candidature. He submitted that though petitioner could not

produce it on 10.7.2020,but the fact remains that he has requisite

license.

(3 of 3) [CW-9137/2021]

(9) Having perused the record, this Court finds that the

endorsement regarding driving heavy motor vehicle has been

made on petitioner's license on 14.7.2020, which clearly suggests

that petitioner has been issued license to drive heavy motor

vehicle on 14.7.2020, which is admittedly after the date of

document verification.

(10) That apart, the revised advertisement was issued on

25.4.2018 and even before that a corrigendum dated 21.10.2016

(Annex.3) was issued in which requirement of having a license to

drive heavy motor vehicle was inserted for the post in question.

(11) A candidate's eligibility has to be reckoned on the date of

advertisement or on the last date of submitting application form.

Even on the date of written examination, viz., 23.12.2019, the

petitioner did not possess a valid license to drive heavy motor

vehicle.

(12) This Court does not find any merit and substance in

petitioner's contention.

(13) The writ petition, therefore, fails.

(14) The stay application stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J

90-CPGoyal/-

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 : IJJ

 

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

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter