Allowed

Rakesh Chand Gupta and Anr. v. State Education Departmentanr

Rajasthan HC6 Mar 2012CW/2271/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition regarding appointment age limits. It directed the respondents to consider the petitioners' representation for age relaxation in light of prior precedents and the fact that no recruitment for the posts had occurred since 1998.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondents to consider the petitioners' representation for age relaxation, applying the ratio of cited precedent.

Rakesh Chand Gupta and Anr. Vs State Education… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2012)

¶1

CW2271/2012

¶2

// 1 //

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶4

ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2271/2012 With S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Appl. No.1769/2012

¶5

Rakesh Chand Gupta and Another Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Others

¶6

Date of Order ::: 06.03.2012

¶7

Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq

¶8

Shri Dinesh Kala for Shri Rajesh Kala, counsel for petitioners ####

¶9

By the Court :-

¶10

It is stated that petitioners crossed the age limit provided for appointment to the post of PTI Gr II and Gr III.

¶11

Similar controversy came up before this Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Bardiya & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan & Anr. - SBCWP No.8046/2008 , decided on 18.8.2011 and, therein, referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R.P.S.C., Ajmer Versus Smt. Anand Kanwar – Civil Appeal No.52 of 1993 , decided on 8.2.1995, the petitioners therein were not held within the age for appointment to the post in reference though a direction for consideration of the representation for grant of age relaxation was given. It is submitted that case of the petitioners may be covered by the aforesaid judgment and accordingly a direction may be given for consideration of the representation in the light of the fact that for last 13 years, no recruitment to the post of PTI Gr II and Gr III has been undertaken.

¶12

In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider petitioners' representation

¶13

CW2271/2012

¶14

// 2 //

¶15

in the light of the judgment in the case of Pawan Kumar Bardiya (supra) and taking note of the hardship and the last recruitment being made in the year 1998. The respondents are expected to take a proper view as indicated in the judgment referred to above. It is clarified that respondents will apply the ratio of the aforesaid judgment instead of going into the facts therein. The petitioners will, however, enclose the copy of the judgment supra while copy of this order is served on the respondents along-with the representation.

¶16

This also disposes of the stay application.

¶17

(Mohammad Rafiq) J.

¶18

//Jaiman//61

¶19

All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.

¶20

Giriraj Prasad Jaiman PS-cum-JW

Rakesh Chand Gupta and Anr. v. State Education Departmentanr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Chand Gupta and Anr. v. State Education Departmentanr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Sahruddin Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Mamta Kumari Jat Vs Director General of Police Ors.

Ranveer Singh Yadav Vs R S R T C and Anr.

Brij Lal Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp.

Jagdish Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp.