Madhu vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 9474 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8747/2022

1. Madhu W/o Vishnu Hans, Aged About 34 Years, Tilak Nagar, Udaimandir, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

2. Pooja Hans D/o Rajesh Hans, Aged About 24 Years, 16, Tilak Nagar, Udaimandir, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

3. Priyanka Hans D/o Rajesh Hans, Aged About 24 Years, Tilak Nagar, Udaimandir, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

4. Annu W/o Anil, Aged About 40 Years, Gali No.4, Gandhipura, Bjs Colony, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

5. Rohit Hans S/o Rajesh Hans, Aged About 26 Years, House No.16, Udaimandir, Tilak Nagar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

6. Vishnu Hans S/o Shyam Lal Hans, Aged About 38 Years, House No.16, Udaimandir, Tilak Nagar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

7. Sita W/o Rajesh, Aged About 38 Years, Tilak Basti, Udaimandir, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

8. Shivali Ral W/o Ravinder Kumar, Aged About 29 Years, 1852, Chanakya Nagar, Lal Sagar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

9. Manisha W/o Anil, Aged About 25 Years, House No.155, Khasra No.39, Jai Nagar, Banar Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

10. Anil S/o Shyam Lal, Aged About 31 Years, House No.155, Khasra No.39, Jai Nagar, Banar Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

11. Diksha Gharu W/o Pratik Kalla, Aged About 27 Years, Tilak Nagar, Udaimandir, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

12. Aaina Kalla D/o Dinesh Kalla, Aged About 29 Years, Tilak Nagar, Udaimandir, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

13. Pratik Kalla S/o Dinesh Kalla, Aged About 30 Years, 1757,vishnu Bhawan, Udaimandir, Tilak Nagar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

14. Sunita W/o Dinesh Kalla, Aged About 46 Years, Tilak Nagar, Udaimandir, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

15. Isha Kalla D/o Dinesh Kalla, Aged About 23 Years, Tilak Nagar, Udaimandir, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

16. Mahendra Sharma S/o Om Prakash Sharma, Aged About 30 Years, Bada Bas, Gangani, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

(2 of 3) [CW-8747/2022]

17. Ramesh Phophalia S/o Devi Lal Phophalia, Aged About 34 Years, Laxman Ghati, Soorsagar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

18. Meenakshi Adiwal W/o Naveen Adiwal, Aged About 38 Years, Tilak Nagar, Udaimandir, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

19. Jyoti D/o Suresh, Aged About 32 Years, Tilak Nagar, Udaimandir, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

20. Rahul Hans S/o Rajesh Hans, Aged About 38 Years, House No.16, Udaimandir, Tilak Nagar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self Government Department, G-3, Rajmahal Residential Area, C-Scheme Near Civil Line Phatak, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Director And Joint Local Self Government Department, G-

3, Rajmahal Residential Area, C-Scheme Near Civil Line Phatak, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. Jodhpur Municipal Corporation (South), Jodhpur, Rajasthan Through Its Commissioner.

4. Jodhpur Municipal Corporation (North), Jodhpur Rajasthan Through Its Commissioner.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Nikhil Dungawat. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suniel Purohit.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Order

20/07/2022

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue

raised in the present writ petition stands covered by judgment in

Virendra Kumar & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. : D.B. Special

Appeal Writ No.1733/2018, decided on 9.8.2019.

In the case of Virendra Kumar (supra), the Division Bench

inter alia ordered as under:-

(3 of 3) [CW-8747/2022]

"34. As a result of the above discussion, the appeals have to succeed in part; the respondent State shall draw the select list, after excluding the names of those reserved category candidates, who were granted age relaxation, and were afforded the opportunity of participation in the selection through draw of lots, for the open category. A fresh select list, based upon a new draw of lots to be conducted from amongst names of all eligible candidates, (excluding those reserved category candidates who had availed age relaxation benefits, but were allowed a second chance in the draw of lots for the general category candidates) shall be prepared, in respect of balance vacancies. The respondents shall also ensure that names of ineligible candidates, or those who made false declarations are suitably removed, in accordance with law; this is subject to the final outcome of the proceedings initiated by such candidates.

35. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the appeals are partly allowed; all applications too are therefore, disposed of."

In view of the submissions made, the writ petition filed by

the petitioners is disposed of in light of judgment in the case of

Virendra Kumar (supra).

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 57-PKS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)