Kamal Raja vs Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur
2022 Latest Caselaw 9542 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4725/2022

Kamal Raja S/o Sh. Gyan Singh, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Shanti Nagar, A Block, Ramdeo Colony, Ward No.24 Shivrasi Sadan, Plot No.79, Jalore, District Jalore (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, Through Its Registrar

2. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary To The Government Department Of Law and Legal Affairs, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

----Respondents CONNECTED WITH D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6517/2022 Ratankala Sharma D/o Sh. Vidhyadhar Sharma, Aged About 48 Years, R/o S-74, Amarbagh Ashiana, Pali Road, Jodhpur-342001

----Petitioner Versus

1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, Through Its Registrar General

2. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary To The Government, Department Of Law and Legal Affairs, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

3. High Court Of Rajasthan, Through Registrar (Examination), Jodhpur

----Respondents

For Petitioner-Kamal Raja : Mr. B.S. Sandhu For Petitioner-Ratankala Sharma : Mr. Vineet R. Dave For Respondent-High Court : Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Aniket Tater For Respondent-State : Mr. Sandeep Shah, Sr. Advocate & AAG assisted by Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Rathore

(2 of 2) [CW-4725/2022]

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

Order

21/07/2022

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners with

the grievance that they applied for the Competitive Examination

for Direct Recruitment to the Cadre of District Judge, 2020,

however, their candidatures was rejected on the ground that they

failed to fulfill the requirement of submitting 10 judgments of the

preceding 7 years as prescribed under Rule 36(1) of the Rajasthan

Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the

Rules of 2010'). The petitioners have also challenged the validity

of the Rule of 36(1) of the Rules of 2010.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after taking

into consideration the fact that the petitioners have not fulfilled

the condition mentioned in the Rule 36(1) of the Rules of 2010,

we are not inclined to pass any interim stay order in their favour.

Hence, the stay petitions are dismissed.

Learned counsel for the respondents are directed to file

replies to the writ petitions within a period of three weeks.

List after three weeks.

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J (VIJAY BISHNOI),J

Abhishek Kumar S.Nos.5-6

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)