Dinesh Kumar vs Kana Ram (2023:Rj-Jd:44602)
2023 Latest Caselaw 11003 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Dinesh Kumar vs Kana Ram (2023:Rj-Jd:44602) on 19 December, 2023

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2023:RJ-JD:44602]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                     S.B. Writ Contempt No. 919/2023

Dinesh Kumar S/o Shri Ram Lal, Aged About 29 Years, Resident
Of Village Khara, Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore.
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.       Kana Ram, Posted On The Post Of Director, Elementary
         Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
2.       Rohit Kuamr, Posted On The Post Of Chief Executive
         Officer, Zila Parishad Jalore, District Jalore, (Raj.)
3.       Sri Ram Godara, Posted On The Post Of District Education
         Officer, Elementary Education, Jalore, District Jalore, Raj.
         Secondary Education, Pali Zone, District Pali, Rajasthan.
4.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
         Of Rural And Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan,
         Jaipur (Raj.)
                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Jagdish Kumar Vishnoi
For Respondent(s)           :     -



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

19/12/2023

In the reply filed to the present contempt petition, the

respondents have stated that the representation of the petitioner

has been considered by the respondents in the light of judgment

passed by this Court and the same has been allowed vide order

dated 22.07.2022. In the reply, it has been stated that after

issuance of order dated 22.07.2022, the petitioner would get all

the benefits equal to his juniors. It has further been pointed out

by the respondents in their reply that the petitioner had

participated in the recruitment process of Teacher Grade-II Level -

[2023:RJ-JD:44602] (2 of 2) [WCP-919/2023]

I of the year 2018 wherein, the petitioner has mentioned his

gender in his application form as of 'female" in place of "male" and

therefore, the appointment has been accorded to the petitioner

with delay.

Having gone through the reply, it is in the considered opinion

of this Court that the order under consideration has been complied

with by the respondents and in view of the fact that the petitioner

wrongly mentioned his gender in the application as "female" in

place of "male", the delay in providing appointment to the

petitioner cannot be attributed to the respondents.

In view of aforesaid discussion, the present contempt

petition is dismissed as the order under contempt has been

complied with by the respondents.

Rule is discharged.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J 139-Ravi Khandelwal

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)