Bhagwat Singh Ranawat vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6502 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:27467]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10769/2023

Bhagwat Singh Ranawat S/o Kalu Singh Ranawat, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Khediya, Post Sarangpura, Tehsil Vallabhnagar, District Jodhpur (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 Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. Pawan Singh
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. Piyush Bhandari for
                                Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG



         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

                                     Order

29/08/2023

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner

failed to appear on the due date of documents verification, which

was held on 08.10.2022 as he resides in remote area.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer that the

respondents be directed to carry out his document verification as

he failed to appear on account of bonafide reasons.

3. In support of his prayer, learned counsel relied upon the order

dated 22.11.2020 of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court rendered

in the case of Alpa Rani Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.(S.B. Civil

Writ Petition No.17623/2022).

[2023:RJ-JD:27467] (2 of 3) [CW-10769/2023]

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

similar direction was passed in the judgment of a Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court in the case of Hemraj vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15629/2022)

decided on 19.10.2022.

5. Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the respondent - State

submitted that the petitioner cannot take advantage of her own

fault while submitting that all the rounds of document verification

have already taken place and seats have been filled.6. In the case

of Hemraj (supra), this Court has observed thus :-

"In view of the above discussion, the petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed. The respondents- State is directed to permit the petitioners to participate in the document verification pursuant to the exercise initiated in terms of Circular dated07.09.2022 at the respective Zila Parishads, in case, their names have appeared in the merit list and they have obtained marks more than the cut-off of the candidates, who have now been called for document verification. Further, in view of the fact that several other candidates, similarly placed to the petitioners, who could not/did not appear during the course of document verification at earlier stages and have obtained marks more than the cut-off of the candidates, who have been called for document verification now by the respondents pursuant to Circular dated 07.09.2022 and have raised objections in this regard with the respondents, with a view to obviate the requirement of similarly placed candidates to approach this Court for similar relief and to ensure that the recruitment, which is even otherwise delayed by about 10 years, now is concluded expeditiously, it would be required of the respondents to afford opportunity to such candidates as well to appear for document verification i.e. those whose name appeared in the merit list issued earlier and they could not / did not appear for document verification and have marks more than the present cut-off and have raised objections to the provisional merit list issued by the respondents. For the said purpose, the State might issue an advertisement in the daily newspaper throughout the State requiring the said candidates to

[2023:RJ-JD:27467] (3 of 3) [CW-10769/2023]

appear for document verification on a date to be fixed by the State in this regard."

7. Mr. Piyush Bhandari, learned counsel for the respondent-State

though not in a position to dispute the factual and legal position,

however, submits that an appeal (DB Special Appeal Writ

No.1115/2022) has been filed by the State against the order

rendered in Hemraj (supra) and the Division Bench in such appeal

has stayed the effect and operation of the order dated

19.10.2022, hence, similar order as in the case of Hemraj may not

be passed in petitioner's favour.

8. Having heard rival counsel, this Court is of the view that the

petitioner's case is not different than the case of Hemraj (supra)

and in case seats remain vacant and similar order is not passed,

the petitioner's right to take part in the selection process will be

adversely affected, if the Division Bench ultimately dismisses

State's appeal in case of Hemraj.

9. The present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the

respondents to call the petitioner for document verification, if any

fresh round takes place for the post of Lower Division Clerk for

District Rajsamand in pursuance to the Advertisement of 2013.

10. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

11. The order has been passed based on the submissions made

in the petition, the respondents would be free to examine the

veracity of the submissions made in the petition and only in case,

the averments made therein are found to be correct, the petitioner

would be entitled to the relief.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 259-Shahenshah/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)