Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kanhaiya Lal Labana vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 4 April, 2023
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2023/RJJD/008498]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2650/2023
Kanhaiya Lal Labana S/o Prithvi Singh Labana, Aged About 36
Years, Village And Post Tanda Ratna, Tehsil Sajjangarh, District
Banswara (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 Sikar, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pawan Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG with
Mr. Kunal Upadhyay
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
04/04/2023
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by a
decision of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.17623/2022 "Alpa Rani Vs. State of Rajasthan" decided
on 22.11.2022 in the following terms:-
"It is submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioner that though pursuant to the document
verification notice dated 11.10.2022 (Annex.8), the
petitioner could not appear for document verification,
which was scheduled on 14.10.2022. Whereafter, the
respondents have conducted second round of
document verification, which ended on 18.11.2022,
[2023/RJJD/008498] (2 of 2) [CW-2650/2023]
wherein though the petitioner had made an
application on 10.11.2022, she was not permitted to
participate in the second round.
However, as the recommendations have been
made pursuant to the document verification held on
14.10.2022 and second round of document
verification, which ended on 18.11.2022 and in case,
posts still remain vacant, the respondents would hold
third round of document verification, the respondents
be directed to permit the petitioner to participate in
the document verification, as the petitioner has marks
higher than the candidates, who have been selected
by the respondents.
Learned counsel for the respondents made
submissions that having failed to appear pursuant to
the notice dated 11.10.2022, the petitioner is not
entitled to any relief.
Having considered the submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and fact that the
petitioner has obtained higher marks, inasmuch as,
she was called in first round of document verification,
in case, the respondents hold third round of
document verification, the petitioner may be
permitted to appear for document verification in the
third round, in case, the post/s in petitioner's
category are vacant.
With the above directions, the petition stands
disposed of. However, it is made clear that the
petitioner would not be issued a fresh notice."
In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of
in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Alpa
Rani (supra).
It is made clear that if the process of selections is still
underway, then only the candidature of the petitioner is required
to be considered and not otherwise.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
33-/Vivek/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
