Sohan Lal vs State And Ors (2023/Rjjd/009433)
2023 Latest Caselaw 2869 Raj

[2023/RJJD/009433]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11992/2015

Sohan Lal S/o Shri Uda Ram Nagoda, Aged about 53 years, R/o 5-E-36, New Housing Board, Pali (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Department of Education (Secondary), Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Director, Department of Education (Secondary), Government of Rajasthan, Bikaner.

3. Deputy Director, Department of Education (Secondary), Government of Rajasthan, Pali

4. District Education Officer (Secondary), Department of Education, Government of Rajathan, Pali

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naresh Kumar for Mr. VR Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sarwan Kumar for Mr. Hemant Choudhary, GC

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order 10/04/2023

1. The petitioner is a candidate of PH category.

2. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought

direction to the respondents to accord reservation in promotion as

well, as has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in Civil

Appeal No.59/2021: the State of Kerala & Ors. Vs.

Leesamma Joseph reported in (2021) 9 SCC 208.

3. In the above referred case, Hon'ble the Superme Court has

held as under:-

"29. We are of the view that the course of action followed by the High Court in the impugned order is salutary and does not call for any interference. We have also answered various questions which have arisen in the present proceedings assisted by learned Amicus Curiae. In fact, what seems to emerge is that the

[2023/RJJD/009433] (2 of 2) [CW-11992/2015]

appellant-State has not implemented the judgment of this Court in Rajeev Kumar Gupta's and Siddaraju's cases(supra). Thus, we consider it appropriate to issue directions to the State of Kerala to implement these judgments and provide for reservation in promotion in all posts after identifying said posts. This exercise should 14 A case before the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan), Govt. of India be completed within a period of three months. We are making it time bound so that the mandate of the Act is not again frustrated by making Section 32 as an excuse for not having identified the post.

30. We may also note that the 2016 Act has now taken care of how to deal with the aspect of reservation in promotion. The view aforesaid was required to be propounded as a large number of cases may still arise in the context of the 1995 Act."

4. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is disposed

of with a direction to the petitioner to file a representation with

the copy of the judgment in the case of the State of Kerala &

Ors. Vs. Leesamma Joseph (supra) and a certified copy of the

order instant before the respondent No.2 and 3 within a period of

three weeks.

5. In case, any such representation is so addressed, the

respondent No.2 and 3 shall look into the matter and do the

needful in accordance with law, as early as possible, preferably

within a period of three months of receipt of the same.

6. The stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 173-pooja/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)