Nema Ram vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2867 Raj

[2023/RJJD/009482]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 948/2019

Nema Ram S/o Dana Ram, Aged About 20 Years, B/c Prajapat, Village Bawadi, Tehsil - Bawadi, District Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Superintendent Of Police, District- Kota.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 472/2019 Megh Raj S/o Tiku Ram, Aged About 26 Years, Village And Post- Payali, Tehsil Didwana, And Dist. Nagaur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarters, Jaipur (Raj.)

3. The Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police Headquarters, Jaipur.

4. The Inspector General Of Police, Kota.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Varda Ram Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kailash Choudhary

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

[2023/RJJD/009482] (2 of 2) [CW-948/2019]

10/04/2023

1. Mr. Varda Ram Choudhary, learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the facts of the petitioners' case are

identical to the one decided by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court

in the case of Revant Ram Meghwal & Ors. vs. State & Ors.

(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13731/2018).

2. On the other hand, Mr. Kailash Choudhary, learned

counsel appearing for the respondents submits that true it is that

in case of Rewat Ram, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court had

allowed the writ petition. However, the appeal filed there against

by the State, was allowed and the order of the learned Single

Judge was set aside. He further submitted that even Special

Leave Petition filed by one similarly situated candidate Maunni

Nath was rejected and the judgment of Division Bench was

affirmed. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief.

3. In view of the submissions made by the learned

counsel for the parties and considering that Division Bench has

held against the petitioners, this Court does not find any merit and

substance in the petitioners' case for which both the writ petitions

are dismissed.

4. Stay applications also stand dismissed.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 216-Mak/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)