Disposed

Sanjay Singh Rathore Anr. v. R S R T C and Anr.

Rajasthan HC4 May 2012CW/5499/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disposing of a writ petition regarding age limit for Conductor appointments, the court directed respondents to consider the petitioners' representation on age relaxation citing a prior High Court judgment, while clarifying that the ratio of that judgment should be applied rather than its specific facts.

What did the court decide?

Direction given to respondents to consider petitioners' representation for age relaxation applying the ratio of Pawan Kumar Bardiya case.

Sanjay Singh Rathore Anr. Vs R S R T C and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶3

JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶4

ORDER

¶5

SB Civil Writ Petition No.5499/2012

¶6

Sanjay Singh Rathor & anr versus RSRTC & anr 4.5.2012

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI

¶8

Mr Gajender Sharma – for petitioners

¶9

BY THE COURT:

¶10

It is stated that petitioner/s crossed the age limit provided for appointment to the post of Conductor.

¶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 petitioner/s 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 2 years, no recruitment to the aforesaid post has been undertaken.

¶12

¶13

In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider petitioner/s' representation 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 in the year 2010, 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 petitioner/s will, however, enclose the copy of the judgment supra while copy of this order is served on the respondents.

¶14

This disposes of the stay application also.

¶15

(MN BHANDARI), J.

¶16

bnsharma

¶17

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

¶18

(BN Sharma) PS-cum-JW

Sanjay Singh Rathore Anr. v. R S R T C and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Singh Rathore Anr. v. R S R T C and Anr.

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

M/S Kanhiya Lal Rameshwar Das Vs Ratan Singh

Kamlesh Bhatnagar Vs R S R Tc and Ors.

Bal Ram Verma Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Smt.Vimla Gupta Vs Director Elementary Education

Brij Bhushan Jain Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Kailash Chandra Verma Anr. Vs State Education Departmentors