Rajasthan High Court
Dallaram Bhatnagar S/O Shri Bakhataram vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 24 October, 2024
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Ashutosh Kumar
[2024:RJ-JP:44758-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 356/2024
Dallaram Bhatnagar S/o Shri Bakhataram, R/o D 22, Govind Puri,
Ramnagar Extension, Sodala, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Ayurved
Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Director, Department Of Ayurved, Rajasthan, Ajmer.
3. Rudmal S/o Shri Sunderlal, Ayurved Nurse, Working At
Government Dispensary Khaliphon Ki Bawri, District Barmer,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Punit Singhvi with
Mr. Ayush Singh
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
Order
24/10/2024
1. Heard.
2. Challenge to the order of dismissal of writ petition dated
20.09.2023 as also order passed in Review Petition dated
11.03.2024 rests mainly on the ground that the appellant was
subjected to hostile discrimination inasmuch as, though, he was
denied appointment on the ground that he secured marks less
than the revised cut off marks, there was another candidate who
secured lesser marks than the appellant, yet he was granted
appointment. Though this fact was not disputed, learned Single
Judge committed illegality in not extending similar benefits to the
appellant. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the
appellant would further submit that there are many such cases
and if he is granted some time, he can still place on record that
many other candidates, who have secured marks less than the
revised cut off marks, were granted appointments.
[2024:RJ-JP:44758-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-356/2024]
3. The appellant's case does not dispute that cut off marks of
SC category was revised to 56.23% whereas appellant secured
54.33% marks.
What the appellant seeks to enforce is negative equality that
if any illegality has been committed, the same should be directed
to be perpetuated by the respondents in the case of the appellant
also.
4. We are of the view that no such direction can be given by the
Court. The grievance that respondent No.3 was illegally appointed,
does not survive because later on, appointment of respondent
No.3 was also terminated on 08.04.2002. It appears that the said
respondent took the remedy under the law and some relief has
been granted in his favour. However, respondent No.3 cannot be
blamed on that ground. Batch of appeals including appeal filed in
the case of respondent No.3 Rudmal were allowed vide judgment
dated 12.09.2008. The judgment passed by Division Bench does
not show that the ground which is being raised by the appellant in
this case, was decided. In that judgment, the Division Bench
decided more than one issues raised by different candidates.
5. Be that as it may, since the respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not
continue respondent No.3 in service but he has been continued by
virtue of judicial order, no relief can be granted to the appellant.
6. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Cost however, is
waived.
(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ
N.Gandhi/Tanisha/9
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
