Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Arvind Dovan vs State And Ors (2023/Rjjd/011383) on 21 April, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2023/RJJD/011383]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12944/2015
Arvind Dovan S/o Shri Hansraj Aged About 27 Years R/o Village
Lalgarh Jattan Tehsil Sadulshahar, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary of Department of
Agriculture and Horticulture, Pant Krishi Bhawan, Janpath, C-
Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. The Director, Department of Agriculture and Horticulture, Pant
Krishi Bhawan, Janpath, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. The Commissioner, Department of Agriculture and
Horticulture, Pant Krishi Bhawan, Janpath, C-Scheme, Jaipur
(Raj.)
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devkinandan Vyas
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.S Rajpurohit, AAG with
Mr. Lucky Rajpurohit
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
21/04/2023
1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged
the action of the respondents, whereby, petitioner's candidature
under the category of Outstanding Sports Persons has been
rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner's
case is covered by the judgment dated 29.10.2018 rendered by
this Court in the case of Altaf Hussain & Ors. Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14569/2018).
[2023/RJJD/011383] (2 of 3) [CW-12944/2015]
3. Apart from that, learned counsel argued that the State itself
has given appointment to one Gurmel Singh on 04.06.2016 on the
post of Physical Training Instructor (PTI) Grade - III.
4. Mr. Rajpurohit, learned Additional Advocate General at the
outset, submitted that the judgment relied upon by learned
counsel for the petitioner in the case of Altaf Hussain (supra) has
been upturned by the Division Bench of this Court vide order
dated 19.02.2021 rendered in the case of State of Rajasthan &
Ors. Vs. Altaf Hussain & Ors. (D.B. Special Appeal (Writ)
No. 1349/2019) and therefore, the petitioner has no case in his
favour.
5. In response to the argument of Mr. Devkinandan that
similarly situated person Gurmel Singh has been given
appointment, it was argued by Mr. Rajpurohit that the petitioner
has not impleaded Gurmel Singh as respondent and that apart,
the appointment to said Gurmel Singh was given on the post of
PTI Grade-III in relation to a separate recruitment that too by a
separate department.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
7. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, the same has
been set at rest by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Altaf Hussain & Ors (supra).
8. Adverting to Mr. Devkinandan's argument that one similarly
situated person - Gurmel Singh has been given appointment,
according to this Court, illegality (if any) committed by one arm of
the respondent - State, which is clearly contrary to law laid down
by this Court, cannot be allowed to perpetuate and this Court
[2023/RJJD/011383] (3 of 3) [CW-12944/2015]
cannot issue direction to the respondents to give appointment to
the petitioner also, contrary to a law laid down by the Division
Bench of this Court.
9. Following the judgment dated 19.02.2021 passed by the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan &
Ors. Vs. Altaf Hussain & Ors. (D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.
1349/2019), the present writ petition is dismissed.
10. Mr. Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner tried to contend
that there is an apparent incongruity and error in the Division
Bench judgment, but this Court being bound by the judicial
discipline refuses to enter into such arena.
11. Stay application also stands dismissed accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
131-Mak/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
