Mukesh Garasiya vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 12605 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14323/2022

1. Mukesh Garasiya S/o Nathu Garasiya, aged about 40 Years, R/o Village Sodla Duda, Post Jangudi, Tehsil Gangad Kalai, District Banswara.

2. Manjula Makwana W/o Shri Mukesh Chandra Tamboliya, aged about 35 Years, R/o Village and Post Khutagaliya, Tehsil Gangad Kalai, District Banswara.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through the Principle Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Dy. Secretary, Administrative Reforms (Group-III) Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

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

4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Banswara, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Saeena Bano. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Piyush Bhandari on behalf of Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Order

20/10/2022

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved

against non-consideration of their candidate for the post of LDC

pursuant to Recruitment-2013.

                                                                                   (2 of 2)                     [CW-14323/2022]



                                          Submissions         have       been       made        that      by   order   dated

19.08.2020 passed SBCWP No.7525/2019, the respondents were

directed to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of

judgment in the case of Heera Lal Jat vs. State of Rajasthan &

Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11070/2018 decided on

01.08.2018. However, their representations have not been decided

and, therefore, the respondents be directed to consider the case

of the petitioners.

A reply to the petition has been filed by the respondents,

inter-alia, indicating that the representations of the petitioners has

been decided way back on 05.10.2020, which has been annexed

as Annex.R/1 with the reply. In the order dated 05.10.2020

(Annex.R/1), it is inter-alia indicated that petitioner No.1 does not

fulfill the requirement as the RSCIT result of petitioner was

declared in the month of September, 2013 and the last date for

such qualification was 30.06.2013. Further submissions have been

made in the reply that petitioner No.2 had applied in the category

of ST General Woman, and all the posts at the relevant time, had

been filled in and therefore, even otherwise, the petitioner No.2 is

not entitled to any relief.

In view of response given by the respondents, which cannot

be faulted, no case for interference is made out.

The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 222-DJ/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)