Disposed

Sampat Lal v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC16 May 2013CW/5602/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan did not dispose of the writ petition on merits but directed the petitioner to file a representation challenging specific questions as wrong. The Court granted a stay benefit allowing the petitioner to join training provisionally and ordered that if the representation fails, the petitioner must still file it within 15 days for merit reassessment.

What did the court decide?

Order to file representation within 15 days regarding wrong answers; trial for ultimate disposal was postponed.

Sampat Lal Vs State and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5602/2012 (Sampat Lal Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.)

¶4

Date of Order : 16.05.2013

¶5

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

¶6

Mr. Sandeep Shah, for the petitioner/s. Mr. G.R. Punia, Sr. Adv. & AAG with Mr. Mahendra Choudhary, for respondent/s.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶8

In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking

¶9

following directions :

¶10

“i) That the order impugned dated 5.3.2012 passed by the respondent No.3 (Annexure-10) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

¶11

ii) The impugned order dated 5.5.2012 (Annexure11) merit list in question, in so far as it does not mention the name of petitioner is concerned, may kindly be quashed and set aside. The same may be directed to be revised after including the name of the petitioner.

¶12

iii) The petitioner may be declared to be eligible

¶13

¶14

for being appointed on the post of Patwari in pursuance of the advertisement dated 7.3.2011 (Annex.1) while treating his marks equivalent the cut off marks and the respondents be directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of Patwari.”

¶15

Admittedly before filing this writ petition, no representation was filed by the petitioner apprising the respondents that answers of few marks are wrong in view of authentic books.

¶16

Vide order dated 15.6.2012, the Coordinate Bench of this Court provisionally permitted the petitioner to join the training programme conducted in pursuance to the examination for the post of Patwari held by the State Government.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of above order, the petitioner was allowed to appear in the training and he has already completed the training but the respondents are not granting fruits of his training solely on the ground that this writ petition is pending.

¶18

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to direct the petitioner to file representation before the respondents and apprise the respondents that

¶19

¶20

answers of few questions put to the candidates were wrong and correct answers may also be brought to the notice of the respondents within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Upon filing said representation, it is expected from the respondents that the representation filed by the petitioner with regard to correct answers of question Nos.24 and 55 will be considered objectively and after assessment if it is found that the petitioner's contention is correct then he will be provided marks prescribed for those questions and thereafter, it is expected from the respondents that the petitioner's merit will be assessed and further proceeding for providing appointment will be undertaken within a period of one month from the date of taking decision and it is expected that after due consideration of merit, if it is found that the petitioner is meritorious and candidate having less percentage of marks has been provided appointment, then, the petitioner's case may also be considered for providing appointment.

¶21

The writ petition is disposed of in above terms.

¶22

(Gopal Krishan Vyas), J.

¶23

arun

Sampat Lal v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sampat Lal v. State and 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

Poonam Chand Sharma Vs Central Registrar, Multi State Co-Op.S.

Hardas Ram Vs State and Ors.

Mukesh Kumar Chobisa Vs Stat E and Ors.

Rajendra Singh Vs State of Raj. and Ors.

Surender Vs State and Ors.

Subhash Chandra Vs State and Anr.