Gajendra Jangid vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:3730)
2025 Latest Caselaw 4978 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Gajendra Jangid vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:3730) on 21 January, 2025

 [2025:RJ-JD:3730]

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                              AT JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1071/2025
Gajendra Jangid S/o Radha Kishan Jangid, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
Shyam Colony, Parbatsar, District Didwana Kuchaman (Raj).
                                                           ----Petitioner
                                 Versus
1.   State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Finance,
     Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.   Director, Department Of Treasuries And Accounts, Jaipur,
     Rajasthan.
3.   Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Chairman,
     Premises    Of    State    Agriculture    Management      Institute,
     Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4.   The Secretary, The Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Premises Of
     State Agriculture Management Institute, Durgapura, Jaipur,
     Rajasthan.
                                                       ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. Sunil Choudhary.
For Respondent(s)          :


                     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Order 21/01/2025

1. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a

judgment rendered in Yogesh Kumar Saini Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9387/2022,

decided on 14.03.2023 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur

and states that instead of deciding the controversy afresh by this

Court, petitioner be permitted to file a fresh representation before

the competent authority and the competent authority be directed to

decided the same by passing appropriate order, in accordance with

law, keeping in view the aforesaid judgment.

2. Request seems to be fair.

3. Given the nature of order which is being passed, no prejudice

would be caused to the respondents and, therefore, the requirement

of issuance of notice is dispensed with as no return is required to be

filed by them.

[2025:RJ-JD:3730] (2 of 2) [CW-1071/2025]

4. Since it appears to be a case involving two conflicting medical

reports--one issued by the competent authority, i.e., the CM&HO,

Nagaur, and the second by the Medical Board constituted by

Respondent No.3 (Staff Selection Board) to verify the certificate

issued by the competent authority after examining the petitioner--

the absence of any written opinion from the Medical Board leaves

this Court unable to understand how the petitioner was certified as

not having the benchmark disability. Additionally, it is unclear why

the certificate dated 04.07.2022 (Annex. 2), issued by the CM&HO,

Nagaur, has not been deemed valid.

5. As per the result declared by Respondent No.3 (Staff Selection

Board), the petitioner has been awarded 465.9516 marks, which

exceed the cutoff of 355 marks for the category in which the

petitioner had applied.

6. In the aforesaid premise, without commenting on the merits of

the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the

petitioner to file a fresh representation, which shall be gone into by

the competent authority and appropriate administrative order shall

be passed in accordance with law.

7. Till a decision is taken on the petitioner's representation, one

post in the category the petitioner applied for shall not be filled-up.

8. Needless to say that the competent authority shall go through

the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner as

mentioned hereinabove and apply its independent mind on the

applicability of the same before passing any order.

9. Needful be done as expeditiously as possible.

(ARUN MONGA),J 10-/Jitender//-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)