Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Roop Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 4 November, 2022
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16314/2022
Roop Singh S/o Guman Singh, Aged About 41 Years, Village And
Post Chetrodi, Tehsil Shiv, District Barmer (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
(Panchayati Raj), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Additional Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati
Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Barmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pawan Singh.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kunal Upadhyay for
Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
04/11/2022
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue
raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by order in
Kanchan Swami v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.15536/2022, decided on 2.11.2022, wherein, this Court
after referring to orders in the case of Bal Kishan v. State of
Rajasthan & Anr.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11807/2014, decided
on 5.5.2017 at Jaipur Bench, Pinkey Gupta v. State of Rajasthan &
Anr.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19652/2017, decided on
24.11.2017 at Jaipur Bench & Pyare Lal Meena v. State of
Rajasthan & Anr.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10639/2017, decided
on 19.12.2017, had allowed the petition in light of and with similar
directions as given in the case of Pinkey Gupta (supra) and,
(2 of 3) [CW-16314/2022]
therefore, the present petition be also allowed in terms of the said
judgment.
In the case of Pinkey Gupta (supra), a Coordinate Bench of
this Court has inter alia directed as under:-
"5. The Court following the same view allows the
instant writ petition and directs the respondents to
consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on
the post of LDC as she is having RS-CIT certificate and if
she is coming in the merit list, she should also be
considered for appointment, provided the post is vacant,
in respect to the same category in which the petitioner
has applied."
Learned counsel appearing for the State made submissions
that though the issue raised by the petitioner is similar to the case
of Kanchan Swami (supra), however, as there is no post in the
petitioner's category i.e. Physically Disabled (LD CP) is vacant, the
petitioner is not entitled to any relief, however, it is submitted that
in view of interim orders granted by this Court in SBCWP
No.10832/2018 & 15253/2017, one post in the said category has
been kept vacant. It is further submitted that pursuant to the
directions in Hemraj vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 15629/2022, decided on 19.10.2022, few more
candidates have now appeared for document verification.
In view of the above circumstances, even if SBCWP
No.10832/2018 & 15253/2017 are accepted, as the petitioner in
terms of the above judgments is also eligible in the same category,
person having higher merit from amongst all the eligible candidates
including the petitioner would be entitled to be considered / get
selected / appointed and, therefore, the petition filed by the
petitioner is also allowed in light of and with similar directions as
given in the case of Kanchan Swami (supra).
(3 of 3) [CW-16314/2022]
However, it is made clear that the petitioner be entitled to
consideration and would get selected / appointed only if he stands
at higher merit than petitioners in SBCWP No.10832/2018 &
15253/2017, in case the said petitions are accepted by the Court
and all other eligible candidates.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
76-Sumit/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
