Rajasthan High Court
Dinesh Gurjar Son Of Shri Keshu Ram ... vs The State Of Rajasthan on 29 September, 2022
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2473/2022
Dinesh Gurjar Son Of Shri Keshu Ram Gurjar, Aged About 33
Years, Resident Of Barawarda District Pratapgarh (Raj)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Medical
And Health Department Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur
2. The Additional Director (Administration), Medical And
Health Services, Rajasthan Jaipur
3. The Director (Non Gazetted), Medical And Health
Services, Rajasthan Jaipur
4. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Pratapgarh (Raj)
----Respondents
Alongwith 114 Petitions mentioned in the Schedule
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Govind Upadhyay.
Mr. Tanveer Ahamad.
Mr. Amit Jindal.
Mr. Govind Upadhyay.
Mr. Rajveer Gurjar.
Mr. Iliyas Khan.
Mr. Surya Prakash.
Mr. Atul Kumar Jain.
Ms. Sudesh Kasana.
Mr. Mukesh Pal Jadoun.
Mr. R.P. Saini.
Mr. Aamir Khan.
Mr. Ram Rakh Sharma.
Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Barala.
Ms. Vandana Sharma.
Mr. Sukhraj Singh Rathore.
Mr. Manish Kumar Sharma.
Mr. Kuldeep Kumar Sharma
Ms. Priya Rastogi.
Mr. Kailash Chand Katara.
Mr. Laxmi Kant Malpura.
Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya.
Mr. Naresh Kumar Singhal.
Mr. Narendra Verma.
Mr. Pradeep Sulaniya.
(2 of 16) [CW-2473/2022]
Mr. Salim Khan.
Ms. Komal Giri Goswami.
Mr. Bajrang Sepat.
Mr. Arvind Kumar Arora.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma.
Mr. Mahendra Sharma.
Mr. Vijay Pathak.
Ms. Swati Tank.
Mr. Anil Kumar Tailor.
Mr. Ankur Rastogi.
Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav.
Mr. Tushar Panwar.
Mr. Riri Raj Rajoria.
Mr. Tushar Pareek.
Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Pareek.
Mr. Ashwinee Kumar Jaiman
Mr.
For Respondent(s) : Dr. V.B. Sharma, AAG.
Mr. Vivek Tyagi, Dy.G.C.
Mr. Rohit Choudhary, GC.
Mr. B.S. Choudahry, Dy.G.C.
Mr. Narendra Singh Chaudhary.
Mr. Nikhil Pal Singh.
Mr. Mr. Pradeep Kalwania, GC.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
29/09/2022
These writ petitions since involve common question, hence
with consent of the parties, have been heard together and are
being decided by the present common order.
Counsels for the petitioners submitted that the issue raised
in these writ petitions has been considered and decided by the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the
matters as detailed below:-
(1) In the matter of Bhawna Lohdar Vs. State of Rajasthan
& Ors. passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1535/2022,
decided on 24.05.2022, it has been held as under:-
"This petition along with a bunch of 20 writ
petitions, enlisted in the appended
(3 of 16) [CW-2473/2022]
Schedule give rise to same issue, which
shall be treated to be part and parcel of
the order instant, are decided by a
common order.
These writ petitions have been filed by the
petitioners, who are candidates at the
recruitment to the post of Lab Assistant
vide notification dated 29.5.2018.
It is inter alia indicated in the writ petitions
that the qualification inter alia provided
that those having minimum 3 years'
experience of working as Laboratory
Assistant / Lab Technician in State
Government Hospitals on contract basis or
through Service Provider Agency, shall also
be eligible.
The petitioners being eligible based on the
said eligibility indicated after obtaining the
requisites from the concerned officers, filed
applications. The certificates were valid for
eligibility as well as for award of bonus
marks as provided in the advertisement.
However, the respondents apparently
based on material, which was collected by
the respondents ex parte, have not
accepted the certificates produced by the
petitioners of having worked on the post of
Lab Technician / Lab Assistant and treating
them as having worked on post different
from the said post i.e. as Lab Attendant /
Ward-boy / Cleaner / Helper has held them
ineligible and have not awarded bonus
marks.
Various submissions have been made that
in the petitions seeking to question the
action of the respondents in rejecting the
certificates produced by the petitioners and
claiming that they are entitled to be
treated as qualified and for award of bonus
marks based on the said certificates.
A response to the writ petition initially was
filed by the respondents seeking to indicate
that the respondents after looking to the
nature of certificates produced by the
petitioners, have sought specific inputs
from the authorities, which have issued the
certificates based on an Eleven Pointer
issued to the said authorities and as the
said authorities have disclosed facts in the
Eleven Pointer, which indicates that the
experience of the petitioners is not that of
Lab Technician / Lab Assistant, they have
been held as ineligible.
Today learned counsel appearing for the
State has made an additional submission
(4 of 16) [CW-2473/2022]
by referring to the Rajasthan Medical and
Health Subordinate Service (Second
Amendment) Rules, 2021, that in terms of
the amendment made by notification dated
9.12.2021, which has came into effect
from 23.5.2018 and essentially pertains to
the advertisement dated 29.5.2018, the
requirement for eligibility inter alia includes
diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology
even from the un-recognized institution
besides the experience on the post of
Laboratory Technician or Laboratory
Assistant.
Further submissions have been made that
the authorities which have issued the
certificates were specifically required to
indicate the nature of duties performed by
the candidates based on the job
responsibilities of various posts, which
were supplied to them and then come to a
conclusion as on what post, the experience
was gained by the candidates and based
on the said material, the decision has been
taken, which cannot be faulted. However, it
is not denied that the issue has been
decided by the authorities holding the
petitioners as not qualified without
affording any opportunity of hearing to
them and in teeth of the certificates issued
by the very same authorities, who have
responded to the Eleven Pointer.
In the circumstances of the case, where
admittedly the respondents have relied on
certain material, which has been collected
ex parte supplied by the same authorities,
who have issued the certificates favouring
the petitioners making them eligible for the
appointment in terms of the advertisement
dated 29.5.2018, which certificate is
sought to be displaced based on such
material, the said action could not have
been taken by the respondents without
affording an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioners and/or at least calling upon
them to respond to the proposed action on
their part by disclosing the material /
Eleven Pointer response received by them,
therefore, the said action of the
respondents is in gross violation of
principles of natural justice.
In view of the above fact situation,
wherein, admittedly the petitioners have
not been afforded any opportunity of
hearing before the respondents have come
to the conclusion based on the material
(5 of 16) [CW-2473/2022]
received by them disqualifying the
petitioners for the post of Laboratory
Assistant, the action of the respondents in
this regard cannot be approved.
Consequently, the petitions filed by the
petitioners are allowed. The action of the
respondents in deciding the issue without
affording any opportunity of hearing to the
petitioners, is set aside. The respondents
would now disclose the material to the
petitioners and on the petitioners making a
representation in this regard, they would
decide the eligibility of the petitioners / the
validity of the certificate issued to them
and based on their decision, would proceed
further in the matter.
The Director (Non-Gazetted) would disclose
the material within a period of 15 days to
the petitioners, response / representation,
if any, be made by the petitioners within a
period of two weeks thereafter to the
Director (Non-Gazetted) and he would pass
appropriate orders on the same within a
period of four weeks thereafter.
The petitioners would be free to take
appropriate proceedings, in case, they
have any grievance qua the decision taken
by the respondents in this regard.
The respondents shall not conclude the
recruitment before passing of the final
orders as indicated hereinbefore.
Insofar as, the issue sought to be raised by
the respondents based on the notification
dated 9.12.2021 is concerned, the said
issue is kept open."
(2) In the matter of Jagdish Prassad Nai Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.1507/2022, decided on 26.05.2022, it has been held as
under:-
"This petition along with a bunch of 12 writ
petitions, enlisted in the appended
Schedule give rise to same issue, which
shall be treated to be part and parcel of
the order instant, are decided by a
common order.
These writ petitions have been filed by the
petitioners aggrieved against the action of
the respondents in counting the period of
experience of the petitioners, which has
(6 of 16) [CW-2473/2022]
resulted in either their becoming
disqualified for applying to the post of
Laboratory Assistant pursuant to the
advertisement dated 29.5.2018 and/or to
get less bonus marks than what they are
actually entitled to.
Submissions have been made that though
the petitioners have worked for the entire
month, as the emoluments paid to the
petitioners have been calculated based on
26 days emoluments, the respondents
while calculating the period of experience,
have not treated them to have worked for
the entire month, which action of the
respondents is contrary to the factual
position as well as the provisions of the
Minimum Wages Act, wherein, the
minimum wages are required to be
calculated in terms of the notifications
issued, which provide that the daily wages
are required to be calculated by dividing
the monthly wages by 26 days and that in
the rates fixed, weekly holidays are
included in salary, therefore, the
respondents could not have deducted the
period based on the fact of payment of
wages for particular number of days.
Further reliance has been placed on
judgment in Mahipal Lakhera v. State of
Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.2577/2020, decided on 11.1.2021.
Learned counsel for the respondents made
submissions that wherever the petitioners
have objections pertaining to the
calculation made by the respondents
pertaining to their period of experience,
they may make representations to the
respondents and the same shall be
appropriately decided by the respondents.
In view of the above submissions made,
the petitioners may make representation to
the Director (Non-Gazetted) with regard to
the calculation of their experience and
consequential fact about their eligibility /
award of bonus marks within a period of 15
days from today.
The Director (Non-Gazetted) would pass
appropriate orders on the representations
to be made by the petitioners within a
period of four weeks thereafter.
The petitioners would be free to take
appropriate proceedings, in case, they
have any grievance qua the decision taken
by the authority in this regard.
(7 of 16) [CW-2473/2022]
The respondents shall not conclude the
recruitment before passing of the final
orders as indicated hereinbefore.
It is expected of the respondents to
conclude the entire exercise by 31st of
July, 2022."
(3) In the matter of Narendra Barwal Vs. State of Rajasthan
& Ors. passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1669/2022,
decided on 05.05.2022, it has been held as under:-
"This writ petition has been filed by the
petitioner aggrieved against non-
consideration of his experience certificate
dated 22.06.2018 (Annex.6) for recruitment
to the post of Laboratory Assistant pursuant
to the advertisement dated 29.05.2018
(Annex.3).
It is, inter-alia, indicated that in terms of
the advertisement, the respondents have
provided award of bonus marks based on
the experience of the candidates. The
experience certificate of the petitioner
indicated the bonus marks as well as
eligibility of the candidates based on their
experience. The experience certificate of
the petitioner indicated experience of 03
years, 05 months & 27 days. The petitioner
applied in terms of the advertisement
claiming his experience as Laboratory
Assistant. The petitioner was called for
document verification, however, in the
provisional merit list issued by the
respondents, the name of the petitioner
was not included though the cut-off meant
for petitioner's category is 23.800 and the
petitioner had obtained 42% marks. Based
on the said aspect, the present petition has
been filed.
A reply to the petition has been filed, inter-
alia, indicating that as the authority has
issued certificate with the nomenclature of
Lab Assistant, though the candidates were
working on the post of Helper / Cleaner and
Lab Attendant, the respondents required
the authorities to respond to the 11 pointer.
In response to the 11 pointer filed as
Annex. R/1, it was indicated that the
petitioner was engaged as a Helper and as
he was engaged as a Helper, he is not
entitled for the experience of Lab Assistant
and as such, he is not qualified and
(8 of 16) [CW-2473/2022]
therefore, his name has not been included
in the provisional merit list.
Learned counsel for the petitioner with
reference to the certificate dated
22.06.2018 (Annex.6) pointed out that the
experience of the petitioner has been
indicated as Lab Sahayak, which can only
be termed as Lab Assistant and once the
experience of the petitioner is that of Lab
Assistant, he is eligible for the post.
Further submissions were made with
reference to Annex.-R/1 indicating that the
petitioner had helped in the testing work in
the Lab and was being paid for the post of
Lab Assistant and as such, there is no
reason for the respondents to claim
otherwise and as such, the denial of
eligibility to the petitioner cannot be
justified.
Learned counsel appearing for the
respondents vehemently opposed the
submissions.
It was submitted that as the petitioner, who
was engaged as a Helper and was being
paid as a Helper only, he is not entitled for
the eligibility based on the experience
certificate issued to him.
Various submissions were made regarding
the fact that when the petitioner was
engaged in the year 2013, the post of Lab
Assistant did not exist and it was only the
post of Helper / Cleaner, which was existing
at that time and the petitioner was
indicated as Lab Assistant, which cannot be
a reason to accept his status as a Lab
Assistant for the purpose of eligibility and
therefore, the petition deserves dismissal.
I have considered the submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and have
perused the material available on record.
The eligibility condition in terms of the
advertisement, interalia, reads as under :-
"1. Secondary or its equivalent;
and
2. Any Diploma in Medical Laboratory
Technology from an institute recognized by
the State Government;
or
having minimum three years experience of
working as Laboratory Assistant /
Laboratory Technician in State Government
Hospitals on contract basis or through
Service Provider Agency, shall also be
eligible."
(9 of 16) [CW-2473/2022]
A perusal of the above would reveal that
the experience required is of working as
Laboratory Assistant / Laboratory
Technician in the State Government
Hospital on contract basis or through
Service Provider Agency and said candidate
has been held to be eligible. The certificate
issued to the petitioner Annex.6, inter-alia,
indicates that the petitioner has worked as
Lab Sahayak. Even in the 11 pointer
obtained by the respondents from CM & HO,
Nagaur (Annex.R/1), it is indicated that the
post of the petitioner was Lab Sahayak, the
contract order indicated his post as Helper,
the payment has been made of the post of
Lab Sahayak and the work being performed
by him has been indicated as 'ySc esa
tkap dk;Z es a lg;ksx' and finally his post
has been indicated as Helper.
As noticed herein-before, the eligibility
condition, inter-alia, indicates experience of
working as Laboratory Assistant. In terms
of the 11 pointer relied on by the
respondents also, the petitioner was
working as 'Lab Sahayak', if it is translated,
it means Lab Assistant and the work
performed by him indicated as helping in
the working of testing in the Lab. The
submissions made that mere helping would
not make him eligible, cannot be accepted,
inasmuch as, the eligibility conditions
indicated both, working as Laboratory
Assistant / Laboratory Technician and
therefore, even those assisting in the
testing, as indicated in the 11 pointer, has
to be held eligible for the purpose of
recruitment in terms of the advertisement
dated 29.05.2018.
The fact that the post for which the contract
was granted indicated the petitioner as
Helper, by itself cannot be a determining
factor for the purpose of eligibility / grant of
bonus marks. It is the work, which is
performed by the person, which alone
would determine the eligibility as the
eligibility condition indicates 'experience of
working as Lab Assistant/Lab Technician'.
In view of the above, the writ petition filed
by the petitioner is allowed. The
respondents are directed to take into
consideration the experience of the
petitioner in terms of the experience
certificate (Annex.6) and in case, he is
otherwise eligible, consider the case for
(10 of 16) [CW-2473/2022]
appointment in terms of the advertisement
dated 29.05.2018."
(4) In the matter of Mahipal Lakhera Vs. State of Rajasthan
& Ors. passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2577/2020,
decided on 11.01.2021, it has been held as under:-
"1. The petitioner vied for the post of
Nurse Grade II pursuant to advertisement
dated 30.05.2018.
2. The petitioner has an experience of
working as a Nurse Grade II on a Mobile
Medical Van with a trust called 'Shri
Parmatama Chand Bhandari Charitable
Trust, Jodhpur' on contract basis for a
period of 3 years, 1 month and 27 days.
3. While submitting his application form,
the petitioner claimed 30 bonus marks for
such experience.
4. The petitioner did not find his name in
the provisional select list and final select
list and on enquiry, he was informed that
he has been awarded 20 bonus marks in
place of 30.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that if he
is/was awarded 30 marks, he would fall in
the merit list of his category, cut off
whereof is 72.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
argued that the petitioner had worked for
more than 3 years and produced a
certificate duly issued by competent
authority, thus, respondents were not
justified in reducing petitioner's bonus
marks to 20.
7. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for
the respondentState argued that petitioner
had produced a certificate of having
worked in Mobile Medical Van for 3 years
and 1 month, but the duty chart for
persons deployed in Mobile Van including
petitioner, shows that they are required to
work only for 20 days in a month. He
argued that this being the position,
petitioner's experience is liable to be
calculated on the basis of actual number of
working days, which were 20 in each
month. Accordingly, petitioner has
experience of 2 years and 1 month and
thus, entitled for only 20 bonus marks,
submitted Mr. Mehta.
8. Heard.
(11 of 16) [CW-2473/2022]
9. It is undisputed that the experience
certificate duly verified by the competent
authority shows that petitioner possesses
experience of 3 years, 1 month and 27
days. It is to be noted that petitioner's
employer had made payment on monthly
basis and his experience certificate has
also been issued on such basis.
10. In considered opinion of this Court,
once the salary is being paid on monthly
basis, the petitioner and/or any other
employee is required to be treated to have
worked for all 30 days in a month, barring
exceptional cases.
11. Looking to the nature of job
responsibilities, if a person is required to
work on lesser number of days in a month,
it would be injustice and disrespect to his
hard work or peculiarity of job on account
of which he is given duties only for 20
days, despite payment being made for 30
days.
12. It can well be understood that since
the petitioner's duty was to be attached
with Mobile Medical Van, he was required
to work only for 20 days, obviously looking
to the onerous nature of the duties.
13. In response to Court's query, Mr. Mehta
admitted that even if a person does not
work on Sundays or National Holidays,
such days are required to be considered in
his experience. If a person despite being
assigned duties for 20 days in a month,
has been paid salary for the whole month,
why would his experience be not of 30
days, particularly when he did not remain
absent?
14. The respondents' action of calculating
experience on the basis of duty chart or
number of days the petitioner was required
to work, is therefore, per-se arbitrary.
15. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed.
Petitioner is held entitled for 30 bonus
marks.
16. The respondents are directed to award
30 bonus marks to the petitioner and
accord him appointment, if he falls in merit
and is otherwise eligible.
17. Needful be done within a period of six
weeks from today.
18. The stay application also stands
disposed of accordingly."
(12 of 16) [CW-2473/2022]
Dr. V.B. Sharma, AAG has admitted the submissions made by
counsels for the petitioners.
In that view of the matter, these writ petitions are disposed
of in view of the judgments passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of
this court at Principal seat Jodhpur in the matters of Bhawna
Lohar, Jagdish Prasad, Narendra Barwal & Mahipal Lakhera (all
supra). Compliance be made within a period of one month in
terms of the order (supra).
Copy of this order be separately placed in each connected
file.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
MG/202-238, 340-429, 93 & 474 (Except-203,204,211,222,233,234,235,341,343,356,385,404,406 &
425)
(13 of 16) [CW-2473/2022]
Schedule
Sr. Civil Writ Petition Party Name
No.
1. 4883/2022 Ashok Koushik State & Ors.
2. 12695/2022 Keshav Prakash & Ors. State & Ors.
3. 7287/2019 Prakash Chand Sharma State & Ors.
4. 12578/2021 Mayank Bhardwaj State & Ors.
5. 2399/2022 Kalulal Lavevanshi State & Ors.
6. 3842/2022 Jayraj Singh State & Ors.
7. 4342/2022 Sajit Ali State & Ors.
8. 4581/2022 Ashok Bhadana State & Ors.
9. 14557/2022 Ms. Kiran State & Ors.
10. 4819/2022 Rakesh Kumar Bairwa State & Ors.
11. 4884/2022 Maina Sain State & Ors.
12. 4919/2022 Rajesh Kumar State & Ors.
13. 5013/2022 Satya Narayan State & Ors.
14. 5036/2022 Radhikesh Gupta State & Ors.
15. 5066/2022 Lalit Rathor State & Ors.
16. 5220/2022 Indra Gurjar State & Ors.
17. 5521/2022 Shivani Sharma State & Ors.
18. 5728/2022 Rajesh Singh Rajawat State & Ors.
19. 5748/2022 Anil Kumar Gour State & Ors.
20. 4879/2022 Hemant Kumar bairwa State & Ors.
21. 6462/2022 Amit Khandelwal State & Ors.
22. 6465/2022 Lokesh Keer State & Ors.
23. 6468/2022 Bhagwat Singh State & Ors.
24. 6509/2022 Rusmudeen State & Ors.
25. 6598/2022 Bhupendrta Choubisa State & Ors.
26. 6599/2022 Deepak Kumar Pareta State & Ors.
27. 6600/2022 Mukesh Kumar Verma State & Ors.
28. 6601/2022 Suresh kumar State & Ors.
29. 6602/2022 Yogendra Goswami State & Ors.
30. 6704/2022 Indu Bala Mishra State & Ors.
31. 4979/2022 Vishnu Sahu State & Ors.
32. 5083/2022 Ramesh Choudhary State & Ors.
33. 5129/2022 Ramjeevan Gaurjar State & Ors.
34. 7357/2022 Manoj Kumar Bairwa State & Ors.
(14 of 16) [CW-2473/2022]
35. 7933/2022 Mahendra Kumar State & Ors.
36. 8998/2022 Mahesh Kumar State & Ors.
37. 1451/2022 Abdul Aleem State & Ors.
38. 5273/2022 Vijay Pal Singh State & Ors.
Kherawat
39. 5533/2022 Nitu Paliwal State & Ors.
40. 13127/2018 Navneet State & Ors.
41. 13375/2018 Shriram Saini State & Ors.
42. 13407/2018 Suraj Kachhawa State & Ors.
43. 13412/2018 Arvind Kumar Mishra State & Ors.
44. 20266/2018 Subhash Kumar Jain State & Ors.
45. 3889/2019 Purushottam Meena State & Ors.
46. 4084/2019 Ravindra Kumar Dhakar State & Ors.
47. 4087/2019 Hemant Kumar Sharma State & Ors.
48. 5850/2019 Manoj Kumar Saini State & Ors.
49. 6741/2019 Deepesh Kumar Kulmi State & Ors.
50. 6743/2019 Satyanarayan Yadav State & Ors.
51. 19224/2019 Ram Prasad Mali State & Ors.
52. 3013/2020 Menka Meena State & Ors.
53. 6553/2022 `Sanjay Kumar Sharma State & Ors.
54. 7492/2020 Singh Ram Meena State & Ors.
55. 15312/2021 Arjun Singh State & Ors.
56. 150/2022 Mahendra Kumar State & Ors.
Gottam
57. 166/2022 Monika Kushwah State & Ors.
58. 171/2022 Ashok Kumar Gurjar State & Ors.
59. 177/2022 Suresh Kumar State & Ors.
60. 210/2022 Tara Chand Prajapat State & Ors.
61. 234/2022 Chatar Singh State & Ors.
62. 241/2022 Rajesh Singh State & Ors.
63. 269/2022 Ganesh Kumar State & Ors.
64. 347/2022 Shreeram Palsaniya State & Ors.
65. 420/2022 Devendra Singh State & Ors.
66. 435/2022 Govind Kumar Yadav State & Ors.
67. 500/2022 Mahendra Singh Gurjar State & Ors.
68. 512/2022 Shaitan Singh Gurjar State & Ors.
69. 553/2022 Anshul Kumar Yadav State & Ors.
70. 589/2022 Mahendra Kumar Saini State & Ors.
71. 609/2022 Vivek Sharma State & Ors.
(15 of 16) [CW-2473/2022]
72. 617/2022 Balvindra Singh State & Ors.
73. 712/2022 Avadesh kumar Jaiman State & Ors.
74. 843/2022 Pawan Kumar Gour State & Ors.
75. 915/2022 Ankit Kumar State & Ors.
76. 942/2022 Pawan Kumar Sharma State & Ors.
77. 960/2022 Vijay Kumar State & Ors.
78. 1077/2022 Naresh Kumar Sharma State & Ors.
79. 1136/2022 Dipesh Kushwah State & Ors.
80. 1168/2022 Raghunandan State & Ors.
81. 1191/2022 Rajesh Kumar Sharma State & Ors.
82. 6554/2022 Nazeer Mohammad State & Ors.
Rangreej
83. 1297/2022 Shelendra Singh Jadoun State & Ors.
84. 1299/2022 Rahul Lohar State & Ors.
85. 1383/2022 Hem Kanwar State & Ors.
86. 1384/2022 Subhash Gurjar State & Ors.
87. 1413/2022 Mahendra Singh State & Ors.
88. 1431/2022 Bhagwan Singh State & Ors.
89. 1466/2022 Radha Mohan Sharma State & Ors.
90. 1514/2022 Manoj Kumar Sharma State & Ors.
91. 1739/2022 Kaushal State & Ors.
KishorVashishtha
92. 1792/2022 Ashok Kumar Sharma State & Ors.
93. 2330/2022 Sanwar Mal Yadav State & Ors.
94. 2362/2022 Girish Chandra sharma State & Ors.
95. 2696/2022 Ganesh Lal Prajapat State & Ors.
96. 2697/2022 Rami Raja State & Ors.
97. 2851/2022 Manoj Kalla State & Ors.
98. 3018/2022 Prakash Kaur State & Ors.
99. 3020/2022 Rakesh Kumar Saini State & Ors.
100. 3243/2022 Suraj Kachhwah State & Ors.
101. 9675/2022 Rakesh Kumar Sharma State & Ors.
102. 3454/2022 Shimbhu Dayal State & Ors.
103. 6555/2022 Rishi Kumar Meena State & Ors.
104. 4009/2022 Pawan Kumar Sharma State & Ors.
105. 4152/2022 Vinod Kumar State & Ors.
106. 4494/2022 Allarakha State & Ors.
107. 4542/2022 Puja Mathur State & Ors.
108. 4603/2022 Kishor Bhargav State & Ors.
(16 of 16) [CW-2473/2022]
109. 4638/2022 Himanshu Choubisa State & Ors.
110. 4668/2022 Anoj Kumar Meena State & Ors.
111. 4797/2022 Rajendra kumar Patidar State & Ors.
112. 4815/2022 Mohammad Azhar Khan State & Ors.
113. 4817/2022 Ashok Choudhary State & Ors.
114. 4978/2022 Bhagwan Sahay State & Ors.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
