The Rajasthan Public Service ... vs Rampratap
2022 Latest Caselaw 12653 Raj

(1 of 2) [SAW-35/2021]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 35/2021

1. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission (Rpsc), Ajmer Through Its Secretary.

2. All The Affecting Selected Candidates, Through The Secretary Rajasthan Public Service (Rpsc) Commission, Ajmer.

----Appellants Versus

1. Rampratap S/o Shri Harim Ram, Aged About 35 Years, R/ o Village Ranyawali, District Ganganagar (Rajasthan)

2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director, Department Of Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

3. The Secretary, Board Of Secondary Education, Ajmer Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Khet Singh Rajpurohit. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pushkar Taimini, for Mr. Hemant Bhati.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Judgment

21/10/2022

The office objection is over-ruled. With the consent of

learned counsel for the parties, the matter is being heard and

decided today itself.

The instant intra-court appeal is directed against the order

dated 30.01.2020 whereby, the writ petition preferred by the

respondent Shri Rampratap and on the basis of the judgment in

the case of Sonam Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B.

Civil Writ Petition No.18570/2018) decided on 29.05.2019,

(2 of 2) [SAW-35/2021]

the same was accepted. The operative portion of which is as

hereunder:-

"The petitioner's assessment shall be carried out in line with the adjudication made by this Court in Sonam Choudhary's case (supra) qua question No.37 of subject - G.K. On re-appraisal of the result of the petitioner, if his marks are more than the last selected candidate, he shall be accorded appointment subject to their being otherwise eligible."

Shri Khet Singh Rajpurohit, learned counsel representing the

appellant-commission, pointed out that judgment in the case of

Sonam Choudhary and other coordinate matters has been

reversed by Division Bench of this Court.

Identical orders passed by learned Single Bench were

challenged by the Commission by filing D.B. Special Appeal Writ

No.1046/2019 which has been allowed and the order of the

learned Single Bench has been reversed. Thus, he submits that

the appeal is fit to be accepted.

Learned counsel Shri Taimini representing the respondents is

not in a position to dispute this submission of Shri Rajpurohit.

Resultantly, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is

allowed in these term.

No order as to costs.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J 18-Prashant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)