Arjun Ram vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2879 Raj

[2023/RJJD/009248]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17666/2022

Arjun Ram S/o Shri Sukh Ram, Aged About 44 Years, R/o V.P.O. Fategarh, Khilery Bass, 29 SSW, Dabli Rathan, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

3. The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Pilibangan, District Hanumangarh.

4. The Gram Panchayat Amarpura Rathan, Through Its Gram Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Pilibangan District Hanumangarh.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J. S. Bhaleria For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG assisted by Mr. Kunal Upadhyay

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

10/04/2023

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by

the judgment of this Court rendered in a bunch of writ petitions

led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16990/2022 (Vinay Govind

Trivedi V/s State of Rajasthan & Anr.) and other connected

matters decided on 27.02.2023 in the following terms :-

[2023/RJJD/009248] (2 of 2) [CW-17666/2022]

"Thus, in view of the above, the present writ petitions are allowed, and the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioners on the basis of their actual marks obtained in the supplementary examination and thereafter, the merit of the Secondary Board Examination shall be accordingly computed; in case the petitioners are coming in merit and are otherwise found eligible, appropriate appointment shall be granted to them prospectively. The interim orders passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court in most of the above numbered writ petitions, whereby the concerned respondent authority was directed to keep one post vacant during the pendency of the writ petitions and thus, the question of vacancy need not be dealt with by this Court.

All pending applications stand disposed of."

Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to

refute the submissions made by the learned counsel for the

petitioner.

In view of the submissions made above, the present writ

petition is allowed in the terms of the judgment passed by this

Court in the case of Vinay Govind Trivedi (Supra) decided on

27.02.2023.

Stay application as well as other pending applications, if any,

shall stand disposed of.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 96-SunilS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)