Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhupesh Kumar Parmar vs Aparna Arora (2023:Rj-Jd:41540) on 1 December, 2023
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2023:RJ-JD:41540]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Writ Contempt No. 115/2023
Bhupesh Kumar Parmar S/o Kanhaiya Lal Ji, Aged About 45
Years, Parmar Floor Mills, Sindhi Colony, Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Aparna Arora, Principal Secretary, Department Of Rural
And Panchayati Raj (Panchayati Raj), Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Shri Mayank Manish, Chief Executive Officer, Zila
Parishad, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Shri Shankar Lal Meghwal, Development Officer,
Panchayat Samiti Khairwara, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Rural And Panchayati Raj (Panchayati Raj), Government
Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pawan Singh.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kunal Upadhyay for
Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
01/12/2023
This Court vide order dated 13.12.2022 passed in SBWP No.
2893/2022 disposed of the writ petition preferred by the petitioner
seeking appointment on the post of LDC, pursuant to the LDC
Recruitment, 2013 by directing the respondents to consider the
petitioner's representation in terms of the adjudication made by
this Court in the case of Praveen Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan &
Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16749/2019).
[2023:RJ-JD:41540] (2 of 3) [WCP-115/2023]
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite the
fact that the petitioner is fully eligible for appointment on the post
of LDC, the respondents till date have not accorded him
appointment in compliance of the order dated 13.12.2022 passed
by this Court.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted
that this Court while deciding the writ petition filed by the
petitioner vide order dated 13.12.2022 directed the respondents
to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the judgment
passed in the case of Praveen Kumar (supra). Learned counsel
submitted that it has specifically been stated by the Court that the
respondents are required to provide appointment to the petitioner
after taking into consideration the qualification which, if it falls in
the merit of the category of the petitioner, accord a seat, if any,
vacant. Learned counsel submitted that no seat in the category of
the petitioner is available or lying vacant pursuant to the LDC
Recruitment, 2013 and therefore, the petitioner cannot be
accorded appointment.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case
and after carefully perusing the order dated 13.12.2022 under
consideration, this Court finds that the writ petition filed by the
petitioner was disposed of with the direction to the respondents to
consider the case of the respondents in terms of the judgment
rendered by this Court in the case of Praveen Kumar (supra),
wherein, it has clearly been directed to the respondents that
appointment is to be accorded, only if the post of LDC is still
vacant.
[2023:RJ-JD:41540] (3 of 3) [WCP-115/2023]
In the considered opinion of this Court, since a categoric
stand has been taken by the respondents before this Court that no
seat of LDC pursuant to LDC Recruitment, 2013 is vacant, the
present contempt petition filed by the petitioner cannot be
entertained and the same is therefore, dismissed.
It is however, made clear that in case, any post of LDC
pursuant to LDC Recruitment, 2013 becomes available the
respondents shall be required to consider the case of the
petitioner in his category as per the directions issued in SBWP No.
2893/2022.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
81-Prashant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
