Disposed

Ankur Kumar Sharma v. State Ministry of Tourism Ors.

Rajasthan HC2 Jan 2013CW/20920/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposes of 47 writ petitions filed by individuals who qualified as tourist guides but were denied licenses. The Court directed the Commissioner, Department of Tourism, to communicate findings of an enquiry and reasons for the delay within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Commissioner, Department of Tourism, Jaipur, directed to communicate enquiry findings and reasons for non-issuance of licenses within six weeks.

Ankur Kumar Sharma Vs State Ministry of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2013)

¶1

// 1 //

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

ORDER IN

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.20900/2012 With Stay Appl. No.16869/2012

¶5

Deepak Pathak Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

¶6

S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.20901/2012 With Stay Appl. No.16870/2012

¶7

Rajesh Ranjan Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

¶8

S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.20902/2012 With Stay Appl. No.16871/2012

¶9

Vikram Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

¶10

S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.20903/2012 With Stay Appl. No.16872/2012

¶11

Himanshu Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

¶12

S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.20904/2012 With Stay Appl. No.16873/2012

¶13

Ganesh Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

¶14

S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.20905/2012 With Stay Appl. No.16874/2012 Badi Uz Usman Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

¶15

S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.20906/2012 With Stay Appl. No.16875/2012 Vikas Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

¶16

S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.20907/2012 With Stay Appl. No.16876/2012

¶17

Mahesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

¶18

S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.20908/2012 With Stay Appl. No.16877/2012

¶19

Rajesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

¶20

S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.20909/2012 With Stay Appl. No.16878/2012 Trilok Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

¶21

S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.20910/2012 With Stay Appl. No.16879/2012 Om Prakash Paliwal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

¶22

S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.20911/2012 With Stay Appl. No.16880/2012

¶23

Sohan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan

¶24

// 2 //

¶25

and Others

¶26

S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.20912/2012 With Stay Appl. No.16881/2012 Jai Singh Chouhan Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

¶27

S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.20913/2012 With Stay Appl. No.16882/2012

¶28

Virendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

¶29

S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.20914/2012 With Stay Appl. No.16883/2012

¶30

Naveen Agarwal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

¶31

S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.20915/2012 With Stay Appl. No.16884/2012

¶32

Arvind Sahal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

¶33

S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.20916/2012 With Stay Appl. No.16885/2012

¶34

Arvind Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

¶35

S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.20917/2012 With Stay Appl. No.16886/2012

¶36

Atmaram Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

¶37

S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.20918/2012 With Stay Appl. No.16887/2012

¶38

Sita Ram Saini Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

¶39

S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.20919/2012 With Stay Appl. No.16888/2012 Bhupendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

¶40

S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.20920/2012 With Stay Appl. No.16889/2012 Ankur Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

¶41

S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.20921/2012 With Stay Appl. No.16890/2012

¶42

Shivraj Singh Shekhawat Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

¶43

S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.20922/2012 With Stay Appl. No.16891/2012

¶44

Shoukat Ali Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

¶45

S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.20923/2012 With Stay Appl. No.16892/2012

¶46

Naval Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

¶47

S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.20924/2012

¶48

// 3 //

¶49

With Stay Appl. No.16893/2012 Raj Kumar Chouhan Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

¶50

S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.20925/2012 With Stay Appl. No.16894/2012

¶51

Manish Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

¶52

S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.20926/2012 With Stay Appl. No.16895/2012

¶53

Mukesh Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

¶54

S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.20927/2012 With Stay Appl. No.16896/2012

¶55

Mahesh Chandra Ojha Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

¶56

S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.20928/2012 With Stay Appl. No.16897/2012 Sanjay Mukherji Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

¶57

S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.20929/2012 With Stay Appl. No.16898/2012

¶58

Lokendra Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

¶59

S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.20930/2012 With Stay Appl. No.16899/2012 Ashok Kumar Jha Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

¶60

S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.20931/2012 With Stay Appl. No.16900/2012

¶61

Vinay Soni Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

¶62

S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.20932/2012 With Stay Appl. No.16901/2012 Vinod Kumar Pareek Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

¶63

S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.20933/2012 With Stay Appl. No.16902/2012

¶64

Vishal Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

¶65

S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.20934/2012 With Stay Appl. No.16903/2012

¶66

Pradeep Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

¶67

S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.20935/2012 With Stay Appl. No.16904/2012

¶68

Puran Saini Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

¶69

S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.20936/2012 With Stay Appl. No.16905/2012

¶70

Jai Prakash Chaturvedi Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

¶71

// 4 //

¶72

S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.20937/2012 With Stay Appl. No.16906/2012

¶73

Janu Saini Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

¶74

S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.20938/2012 With Stay Appl. No.16907/2012

¶75

Rakesh Soni Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

¶76

S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.20939/2012 With Stay Appl. No.16908/2012

¶77

Om Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

¶78

S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.20940/2012 With Stay Appl. No.16909/2012

¶79

Mukesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

¶80

S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.20941/2012 With Stay Appl. No.16910/2012 Manoj Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

¶81

S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.20942/2012 With Stay Appl. No.16911/2012

¶82

Sanjay Kumar Trivedi Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

¶83

S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.20993/2012 With Stay Appl. No.16959/2012

¶84

Puran Singh Rajawat Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

¶85

S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.20994/2012 With Stay Appl. No.16960/2012

¶86

Rajesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

¶87

S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.20995/2012 With Stay Appl. No.16961/2012

¶88

Girraj Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

¶89

S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.20996/2012 With Stay Appl. No.16962/2012 Farhat Rahimi Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

¶90

Date of Order ::: 02.01.2013

¶91

Present

¶92

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq

¶93

Shri I.J. Kathuria, counsel for petitioners ####

¶94

By the Court :-

¶95

All these petitions are filed by petitioners,

¶96

// 5 //

¶97

who applied for their selection as tourist guide and underwent training for the purpose pursuant to advertisement issued by the Tourist Department of the Government of Rajasthan, dated 25.11.2007.

¶98

Contention of learned counsel for petitioners is that the petitioners, after they submitted their applications, were subjected to written examination. Each of the petitioners passed the written examination. Copy of their result sheets is produced on record of writ petitions. They were required to appear in interview. The call letters have also been placed on record. They were allotted different roll numbers. Petitioners were subjected to interview in terms of 'Guidelines for selection of guides, academic qualifications, screening qualification etc. of 1991', which is on record as Annexure-9. Clause 7 of the aforesaid 'Guidelines 1991' provides for ten marks each for personality including personal appearance, fluency in expression and leadership to conduct group of tourists/FIT's and twenty marks for knowledge of the places of tourist interest including monuments/ landmarks/culture/history/philosophy/Rajasthani way of life etc. Petitioners qualified the entire process of selection and also undertook training. It was thereafter that the responders were required to issue them the guide licenses in terms of 'Guidelines 1991'. Some of the petitioners even submitted applications to the Additional Director-cum-Public Relation Officer under Right to Information Act, 2005 as to why so far no licenses have been issued to them but no satisfactory answer was given.

¶99

Contention of learned counsel for petitioners is that till date the petitioners are not aware as to for what reason their licenses have not been issued despite the petitioners having successfully qualified the written test as well as the interview and completed the training. It is contended that certain newspapers carried out report alleging that some of the questions were wrongly framed and some of them carried wrong answers and there were inaccuracies/discrepancies/ mistakes in the question-papers. A committee was set up by the Government to enquire into such inaccuracies/

¶100

// 6 //

¶101

discrepancies/mistakes but report of the said committee regarding alleged inaccuracies/discrepancies/ mistakes or mistakes have not been made known to the petitioners so far.

¶102

On hearing learned counsel for petitioners and perusing material on record, it is evident that though it is a fact that petitioners appeared in the written test, qualified the same and were subjected to interview and then were even sent to training. It was thereafter that the stage had reached for issuance of licenses, but it is not known as to for what reason the licenses were not issued to them. The respondents are duty obliged to make the petitioners aware of their fate and do not keep the things in suspended ammunition for long. Petitioners are required to approach respondent no.2 the Commissioner, Department of Tourism Rajasthan, Jaipur, by making a representation with copy of this order, who, within six weeks from the date of receipt of such representation in his office, shall convey to the petitioners findings of the aforesaid enquiry and the reason why licenses have not been issued to them so far.

¶103

With that direction, the writ petitions are disposed of. This also disposes of stay applications.

¶104

(Mohammad Rafiq) J.

¶105

//Jaiman//71-117

¶106

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

¶107

Giriraj Prasad Jaiman PS-cum-JW

Ankur Kumar Sharma v. State Ministry of Tourism Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankur Kumar Sharma v. State Ministry of Tourism Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umardaraz Vs State Panchayati Raj Dep Ors.

Shivpal Vs State Education Departmentors

Hanuman Sahai Sharma Vs R S R T C and Ors.

Damodar Prasad Vs State and Ors.

Mudya @ Moolchand @ Bhuryua an Vs Tate

Chand Khan Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp.