Disposed

Vidhyadhar Jakhar and Anr. v. State Sports Departmentanr

Rajasthan HC7 May 2012CW/6773/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition seeking age relaxation for appointment to the post of Coach Gr III. It directed the respondents to consider the petitioners' representation applying the ratio of the Pawan Kumar Bardiya judgment due to a 21-year recruitment gap.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider petitioners' representation for age relaxation in light of Pawan Kumar Bardiya judgment.

Vidhyadhar Jakhar and Anr. Vs State Sports… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶3

ORDER

¶4

SB Civil Writ Petition No.6773/2012 Vidhyadhar Jakhar & anr versus State of Rajasthan & anr 7.5.2012

¶5

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr Pyarelal – for petitioners BY THE COURT:

¶6

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

¶7

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 21 years, no recruitment to the post in question has been undertaken.

¶8

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

¶9

¶10

Kumar Bardiya (supra) and taking note of the hardship and the last recruitment took place before 21 years, 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.

¶11

This disposes of the stay application also.

¶12

(MN BHANDARI), J.

¶13

bnsharma

¶14

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

¶15

(BN Sharma) PS-cum-JW

Vidhyadhar Jakhar and Anr. v. State Sports Departmentanr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vidhyadhar Jakhar and Anr. v. State Sports 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

Smt.Vimla Gupta Vs Director Elementary Education

Brij Bhushan Jain Vs State of Raj and Ors.

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

Navd Miyan and Ors. Vs State Medical and Health Ors.

Rajiv Kumar Dixit and Ors. Vs State Medical and Health Ors.

Chandra Prakash Sharma Ors. Vs State Medical Education Depors