Bandana vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 13553 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15828/2022

Bandana D/o Shri Ram Ker Ram, aged about 36 Years, R/o 153, Ward No. 10, JDA Quarter, A-Block, Chokha, Tehsil and District Jodhpur

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Additional Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Pali, District Pali.

4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jalore, District Jalore.

5. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sirohi, District Sirohi.

6. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jaisalmer, District Jaisalmer.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramesh Kumar. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kunal Upadhyay on behalf of Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Order

18/11/2022

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that issue

raised in the present petition is squarely covered by order in

Gautam Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : SBCWP No.

(2 of 2) [CW-15828/2022]

14450/2017 decided on 5.7.2022 and, therefore, the present writ

petition also deserves dismissal.

In the case of Gautam Chand (supra), a Co-ordinate Bench

of this Court at Jaipur Bench, inter alia, observed as under:-

"14. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

15. This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, admittedly the petitioner has not worked on the post which has been mentioned in the advertisement for awarding the bonus marks based on the experience certificate; secondly, in none of the judgments cited by the petitioner before this Court, the post of ASHA Supervisor was considered by the Courts for awarding the bonus marks; thirdly, the petitioner cannot claim negative equality as there is no scope of negative equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, fourthly, Learned AAG has informed that the appointment wrongly given to the persons considering the experience on the post of ASHA Supervisor have already been canceled; therefore, in the facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

16. In that view of the matter, the present writ petition stands dismissed".

In view of the order in the case of Gautam Chand (supra),

the petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 63-DJ/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)