Rajasthan High Court

Sachin Singh Shekhawat S/O Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 11 May, 2022

Bench: Inderjeet Singh

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                 BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1470/2022

1.   Sachin     Singh    Shekhawat          S/o      Shri     Surendra    Singh
     Shekhawat, Aged About 26 Years, R/o E-377 Bank Colony
     Murlipura Road No.2, Jaipur, Vishwakarma Industrial
     Area, Jaipur (Raj).
2.   Tej Karan Saini S/o Shri Durga Lal Saini, Aged About 29
     Years, R/o Madhav Nagar, Kartarpura Phatak, Jaipur
     (Raj).
3.   Sangram      Singh      Shekhawat           S/o      Shri    Mdan    Singh
     Shekhawat, Aged About 28 Years, R/o B-251, J.p. Colony,
     Naya Kheda, Near Sector-04, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur,
     (Raj.)
4.   Kartikey S/o Shri Satyaprakash, Aged About 21 Years,
     R/o Bajrangvihar, Near Kali Ki Bagichi,bharatpur, (Raj).
5.   Sadhana Buliwal D/o Shri Shankar Lal Buliwal, Aged
     About 36 Years, R/o 734 Sector-7, Keshavpura, Kota,
     (Raj).
6.   Rishabh Raj Sharma S/o Shri Suresh Chand Sharma,
     Aged About 21 Years, R/o 65, Gali No.1, Panchwati
     Colony, Near Adarsh Nagar Railway Station, I.e. Makhu
     Pura Ajmer, (Raj).
7.   Meenal Chauhan D/o Shri Narendra Chauhan, Aged About
     24 Years, R/o Bhandari Androoni Colony, Karauli, (Raj).
8.   Naman Sharma D/o Shri Umesh Kumar Shandilya, Aged
     About 29 Years, R/o 4E-242 Gyanodaya Marg, Jai Narayan
     Vyas Colony, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
                                                                  ----Petitioners
                                 Versus
1.   State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
     Department       Of     Home,        Government             Of   Rajasthan,
     Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.   Director    General,      Rajasthan        Police,       Rajasthan   Police
     Headquarters, Shree Ram Road, Lalkothi Jaipur, 302015.
3.   The National Rifle Association Of India, 51-B, Industrial
     Area, Tughlakabad, New Delhi, 110062.
                                                               ----Respondents

                                           (2 of 6)               [CW-1470/2022]




For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Amitosh Pareek.
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. P.S. Naruka for Mr. Rupin Kala,
                                GC.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

11/05/2022

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the

following prayer:-

"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that Your Lordships may be pleased to accept and allow the writ petition and grant the relief prayed for as under :

1. By issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof and thereby direct the respondents to conduct the re- trials by fair means and by complying the National Rifle Association of India Rules and regulations.

2. That by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may be kindly be directed to consider the team medal certificates of the Petitioners.

3. That by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may be kindly be directed to provide with the entire records alongwith videography of the trials conducted by them before the Hon'ble Court.

4. That any other appropriate order or direction which is deemed just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may be kindly be issued in favour of the humble petitioner."

2. On 07.03.2022 this court passed the following order:-

"Counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue involved in these writ petitions have been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this court at Principal seat, Jodhpur in the matter of 'Maya Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.' (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2076/2022) wherein on

(3 of 6) [CW-1470/2022]

21.02.2022, the following order was passed:-

"It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have issued the list of candidates, who has been called for document verification without indicating any particulars.

Submissions have been made that neither the sports, to which the candidates have been selected, have been indicated nor the marks obtained by the candidates have been disclosed.

Further submissions have been made that the candidates, though residence of other States, have also been selected regarding them also no indication has been made. A copy of the writ petition has already been served to Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG, who prays for further time to complete his instructions in the matter.

List the petition on 02.03.2022.

On that date, the respondents shall produce the entire material pertaining to the order dated 25.01.2022 (Annex.8) issued by the respondents and the procedure, which has been adopted for the purpose of declaring the said list.

The respondents may go ahead with the document verification, however, they shall not issue the orders of appointment, till the next date."

In that view of the matter, issue notice to the respondents.

Mr. Rupin Kala, Govt. Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

(4 of 6) [CW-1470/2022]

List these matters on 25.04.2022 along with CW No.1470/2022.

Meanwhile, the respondents may go ahead with the document verification, however, they shall not issue the orders of appointment, till next date."

3. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the issue

involved in this writ petition has already been considered and

decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this court at Principal seat

Jodhpur in the matter of Maya Vs. The State of Rajasthan &

Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2076/2022) where in on

19.04.2022, the following order was passed:-

"This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the Standing Order No.3/2020 dated 18.01.2020 and the provisional selection list dated 25.01.2022 in relation to recruitment of Sports Person to the post of Sub-Inspector/Platoon Commander.

The petitioner had questioned the reduction of the marks meant for participation in individual or team event in National Games/Senior National Championship/Open National Athletic Championship/National Inter-State Senior Athletic Championship/ Federation Cup National Senior Championship/ National Cross Country Championship, from 37 as indicated in the advertisement, as per Standing Order dated 18.01.2020 (Annex.3) to 27.

In response to the writ petition, the respondents have produced the marks obtained by the petitioner and the cutoff in her category, wherein the petitioner has obtained 42.67 marks and the last selected candidate has obtained 63.33 marks. In that view of the matter, even if the plea raised by the petitioner is accepted and the petitioner is awarded ten more marks, then the petitioner cannot make it to the cutoff. In that view of the matter, the petition filed by the petitioner has been rendered infructuous.

Dismissed accordingly."

(5 of 6) [CW-1470/2022]

4. Counsel further relied upon the judgment passed by the Co-

ordinate Bench of this court at Principal seat Jodhpur in the matter

of Shri Vishvaraj Singh Chouhan Vs. The State of Rajasthan

& Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1868/2022) where in on

19.04.2022, the following order was passed:-

"This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector/Platoon Commander pursuant to advertisement dated 28.12.2019 (Annex.1) as Outstanding Sports Person.

Several submissions have been made in the petition including the fact that the respondents, though reserved nine posts for TSP candidates, neither the sports nor the number of posts were declared before hand.

A response to the petition has been filed, inter-alia, indicating that in terms of the advertisement, the candidates were required to undergo trial and were further required to obtain minimum fifteen marks out of thirty for eligibility, however, the petitioner obtained only twelve marks in the trial out of thirty and as such, he couldn't qualify for the post. In view of above fact situation, wherein the petitioner has failed to qualify in the trials, the petition has no substance; leaving it open for the petitioner, to question the action of the respondent regarding the issue raised pertaining to the nature of TSP reservation in case any such occasion arises in future, the petition for the present recruitment, is dismissed."

5. Counsel further submits that the petitioners have obtained

zero marks in the trial while according to condition No.10 of the

advertisement, the petitioners have to secure minimum 15 marks

out of 30 marks in the trial.

(6 of 6) [CW-1470/2022]

6. In that view of the matter, since no person less meritorious

to the petitioners has been selected by the respondents,

therefore, no cause of action survives.

7. Hence, this writ petition stands, accordingly dismissed.

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

MG/320