Disposed

R P S C Ajmer v. Suman Choudhary

Rajasthan HC2 Dec 2013SAW/1452/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Rajasthan disposed of an appeal against an order permitting a candidate to participate in a PSC selection and appearance for an appointment. Bench directed Commission to seek review of the appointment order based on emerging evidence of academic ineligibility before final disposal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed; directions given to appellant Commission to seek review of appointment order based on emerging facts of ineligibility.

R P S C Ajmer Vs Suman Choudhary — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1452/ 2012 Rajasthan Public Service Commission vs. Suman Choudhary

¶4

Date of Judgment

¶5

: 02.12.2013

¶6

HON ' BLE THE CHI EF JUSTI CE MR. AMI TAVA ROY HON ' BLE MR. JUSTI CE VEERENDR SI NGH SI RADHANA

¶7

Mr. S.N.Kumawat, AAG for appellant-Commission. Mr. Mohd. Sakir Khan on behalf of

¶8

Mr. Ram Pratap Saini, for respondent-writ petitioner.

¶9

I n Applicat ion No.2 6 6 / 2 0 1 2 :

¶10

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the averments made in the application and the cause shown for the delay, the delay of 36 days in filing the accompanying appeal is condoned.

¶11

The application is allowed.

¶12

I n Appeal:

¶13

Heard Mr.S.N.Kumawat, learned counsel for the appellantCommission and Mr.Mohd. Sakir Khan, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner.

¶14

Without dilating on the facts, suffice it to mention that the

¶15

selection involved pertains to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) under the government advertised to be filled by the appellant-Commission. In terms of the norms prescribed, the candidate contending for the post was to mention code '01' on the OMR sheet. The respondent-writ petitioner, a candidate, inadvertently mentioned code '00', for which her candidature was cancelled by the appellant-Commission. Being aggrieved, she

¶16

¶17

approached this Court, whereupon she was permitted, by order dated 06.10.2009, to appear in the main written examination, scheduled to be held on 8^th & 9th October, 2009. She was accordingly permitted by the appellant-Commission to participate in the said examination and as required by the aforementioned order, her results were also kept in a sealed cover. Thereafter she participated in the interview also at the intervention of this Court. By the order impugned, it has been directed that if on the basis of her performance in the main written examination and the interview, she is so entitled, she be provided appointment to the post involved.

¶18

The appellant-Commission's plea in the instant appeal is that though in terms of the orders passed by this Court, the respondent-writ petitioner was permitted to take the main written examination and also to appear in the interview, it now transpires that she, at the first place, was academically ineligible for the post and further had not appeared in the preliminary examination to qualify to sit in the main written examination. Learned counsel has urged that these facts could not be ascertained for paucity of time at the earlier stages.

¶19

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner submits that this Court having passed the order permitting participation of the respondent/ writ petitioner in the various stages of the selection process, the appellant-Commission is estopped from taking the pleas, as above, and therefore, the appeal ought to be dismissed in limine .

¶20

¶21

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of

¶22

the view that it would be appropriate, if so advised, for the appellant-Commission to seek a review of the order impugned by laying the new facts emerging from the disclosure in the exercise undertaken by it pursuant to the orders of this Court. Needless to say that if such an application is filed, the respondent-writ petitioner would have to be notified and heard before taking a final decision thereon. As the plea of ineligibility of the respondent-writ petitioner, if sustainable in law and on facts, would have a vital bearing on the final outcome of the proceedings, it would be appropriate, in our comprehension, that this aspect, if a review petition is filed, be examined before dealing with the contempt petition which, as it is submitted at the Bar, had meanwhile been filed by the respondent-writ petitioner alleging deliberate disobedience of the order impugned herein.

¶23

The appeal stands disposed in these terms. I.A.No.23895/ 2013 & 23896/ 2013 as well as D.B.Civil Misc.Stay Application No.14961/ 2012 stand disposed as well.

¶24

( VEERENDR SI NGH SI RADHANA) ,J. ( AMI TAVA ROY) ,C.J.

¶25

M/ 1

¶26

All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. Mohit Tak, Jr. P.A.

¶27

Mohit

R P S C Ajmer v. Suman Choudhary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R P S C Ajmer v. Suman Choudhary

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

Municipal Board Sarwar, Alwar Vs Ram Lal Kheer

Om Metals Consortium Pvt. Ltd. Vs Nirmal Nahata and Ors.

Ranjeet Singh Vs K K Pathak

Chairman R P S C Ajmer Vs Ravi Dutt Sharma and Ors.

Ghanshyam Sharma Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Dr.Purshottam Nagar Vs Raj Hindi Granth Academy