Yogesh Kumar Karhana S/O Shri ... vs Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur
2022 Latest Caselaw 4897 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9577/2022

Yogesh Kumar Karhana
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur & Another
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Prakash Chand Thakuriya Advocate.

For Respondents : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ashish Sharma Advocate.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA

Order

18/07/2022

Heard.

Reply has been filed.

While according to learned counsel for the petitioner,

the petitioner had submitted ten judgments as required under the

Rules and later on while curing the defect, he had submitted two

additional judgments along with the relevant certificate that

during the period such judgments were passed, he, as Assistant

Public Prosecutor, was assigned duty in a particular Court where

the judgments were passed, learned Senior Counsel appearing on

behalf of the respondents would submit that out of total

judgments submitted by the petitioner, one judgment was of the

period prior to seven years. Learned Senior Counsel would further

submit that the requirement of rule was that the candidate must

have personally argued the case and, therefore, when the

(2 of 2) [CW-9577/2022]

judgments did not contain name of the petitioner, the requirement

of rule was not fulfilled and even submission of subsequent

certificate is not clear.

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel

for the parties, particularly taking into consideration that the

petitioner, at the relevant time, was posted as Assistant Public

Prosecutor and assigned duty in a particular Court and the

judgments prima facie appear to be passed by the concerned

Court only, we are inclined to direct that the petitioner shall be

allowed to appear in the written examination on purely provisional

basis. However, result of the petitioner shall not be declared

without leave of the Court. We make it clear that the petitioner

shall not be entitled to claim any equity only on the ground that

he was allowed to provisionally appear in the written examination.

(SHUBHA MEHTA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J

MANOJ NARWANI /49

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)