Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dilkush Meena vs Kunji Lal Meena on 23 July, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Writ Contempt No. 618/2019
1. Dilkush Meena S/o Shri Arjun Lal Meena, Aged About 26
Years, B/c Meena, Village Arinya, Post- Beejwer, Tehsil
Deoli, District Tonk (Raj.).
2. Jugal Kishor Meena S/o Shri Dhanraj Meena,, Aged About
26 Years, B/c- Meena, R/o- Village Mundli, Post- Raital,
Tehsil Mangrol, District Baran (Raj.).
3. Sunita Jagrawal S/o Madan Lal Jagrawal,, Aged About 28
Years, B/c- Jagrawal, R/o- B-13 Davnarayan Colony Ward
No. 20/21 Ctehchaksu, District Jaipur.
4. Satish Kumar Meena S/o Shri Damma Ram Meena,, Aged
About 24 Years, B/c- Meena, R/o- Village Kotra Dhahar
Post- Palanpur, Tehsil Hindauncity, District Karauli.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Kunji Lal Meena, Secretary, Rural Development And
Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Shri Rajendra Shekhar Makkar, The Additional
Commissioner Cum Joint Secretary, Rural Development
And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Dr. Shri Bhanwar Lal Ji, The Chief Executive Officer, Zila
Parishad, Banswara.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sukesh Bhati
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kunal Upadhyay for
Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
23/07/2021
1. By way of the present contempt petition, petitioners have
alleged non-compliance of order dated 07.02.2019, whereby this
(2 of 3) [WCP-618/2019]
Court had allowed petitioners' writ petition in light of judgment of
Jiya Devi vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : SB Civil Writ Petition
No.10796/2018 decided on 25.07.2018, and has directed as
under:
"In view of above, the writ petition filed by the
petitioners is disposed of with the direction to the
respondents to consider the case of the petitioners
for appointment to the post of LDC pursuant to the
advertisement dated 14.02.2013 strictly as per his
merit, eligibility and availability of vacant position in
his category."
2. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents
interalia stating that petitioners have failed to secure place in the
merit list and thus appointment has not been accorded to them.
3. Mr. Kunal Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent-
State submitted that this Court has held the petitioners eligible,
however, directed the respondents to consider merit, eligibility and
availability of vacant posts in their category and since petitioners
were not found meritorious, appointment have not been given to
them.
4. Mr. Bhati, learned counsel for the petitioners, in rejoinder,
argued that 160 posts are still lying vacant and hence, the
respondents' stand that petitioners do not fall in merit is,
untenable.
5. In view of the reply filed by the respondents that petitioners
are not falling in merit, nothing remains to be done in the present
contempt petition.
6. So far as the contention made on behalf of the petitioners
that 160 posts are still lying vacant, is concerned, firstly it is not
(3 of 3) [WCP-618/2019]
the scope of the contempt nor such assertion is supported by any
affidavit or document.
7. The notices of contempt are thus, discharged.
8. Contempt petition is disposed of for statistical purposes.
9. Needless to observe that dismissal of the contempt petition
will not come in petitioners' way, if they want to take their
remedies while establishing that they are meritorious and the
posts are still lying vacant.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
46-pooja/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
