Rameshwar Vishnoi vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8442 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:34712] (1 of 3) [CW-16180/2023]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16180/2023

1. Rameshwar Vishnoi S/o Balwanta Ram, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Jathani Madwanio Ki Dhanya Ekalkhon Cherai, Jodhpur.

2. Ram Niwas S/o Late Shri Harlal Ram Vishnoi, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Machro Ki Dhaniya, Kerla Nada, Bheekam Kor, Jodhpur.

3. Sahi Ram S/o Budha Ram, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of 26, Sagar Maniyan Ki Dhaniya, Dabri, Jodhpur.

4. Karna Ram S/o Shankaru Ram, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Dhoreale Kumharo Ki Dhaniya, Bhim Sagar, Bhimsagar, Jodhpur.

5. Deepak Singh S/o Hanuman Singh, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Thob, Tehsil Osiyan, Jodhpur.

6. Bhom Dan S/o Manohar Dan, Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of Village Birai, Jodhpur.

7. Bhikha Ram S/o Bharmal Ram, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Gilakore, Jodhpur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary To Government, Energy Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chairman Discom, Vidyut Bhawan Energy Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Jodhpur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Through The Managing Director, New Power House, Industrial Area, Jodhpur 342003.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Kshmendra Mathur

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Order

12/10/2023

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the relief

prayed for in the present writ petition has already been granted in

[2023:RJ-JD:34712] (2 of 3) [CW-16180/2023]

a similar writ petition decided by the Jaipur Bench of this Court on

26.04.2023 being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4176/1998

"Ashish Arora Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur"

and another connected matter in the following terms:-

"(17) In the light of aforesaid decisions and constitutional provisions, exclusion of Male candidates for getting compassionate appointment on the post of LDC is based solely on gender discrimination and the same is also in violation of Clause 10.2 of the Regulations 1962. In other words, the classification is not based on any rational interga having reasonable nexus with the object sought to the achieved. The respondents cannot discriminate the petitioners to get appointment on the post of LDC merely because similar Female candidates were less in number in comparison to Male candidates.

(18) Thus, in view of the authoritative judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the impugned order dated 17.10.1996 is held to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and accordingly the same is hereby quashed and set aside.

(19) The writ petitions stand allowed. The respondent is directed to count the services of petitioners on the post of LDC with effect from their initial appointment on the post of Helper Gr.I and grant them all consequential benefits within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

(19) Before parting with this judgment, it is directed that on account of quashing of the impugned order dated 17.10.1996, it would not provide a cause of action to any candidate in future and would apply to the cases which are pending before this court on the date of this judgment only. (21) Stay application and other applications(s), pending if any, also stands disposed of."

Learned counsel further submits that the appeal against the

order dated 26.04.2023 being D.B. Special Appeal (Writ)

No.533/2023 "The Chairman, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam

[2023:RJ-JD:34712] (3 of 3) [CW-16180/2023]

Limited Vs. Dipendra Singh Mehta" and another connected

matter has been dismissed by the Division bench on 19.07.2023.

In these circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners,

without joining the issues on merits, submits that he may be

permitted to file a representation to the respondents for redressal

of their grievances in light of the judgment rendered in the case of

Ashish Arora (supra) & Dipendra Singh Mehta (supra).

Considering the limited prayer of the petitioners, the present

writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to

approach the respondents by way of filing an appropriate

representation. In the event of filing such representation by the

petitioners, the respondents shall consider and decide the same

within a period of three months from date of receipt of such

representation along with the certified copy of this order, strictly in

accordance with law.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 317-Vivek/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)