Dismissed

Nikita Gupta v. Raj High Court and Anr.

Rajasthan HC19 May 2014CW/4645/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a writ petition filed by a physically handicapped candidate challenging her denial of selection in a reserved quota due to the non-declaration of separate cut-off marks. The bench dismissed the petition, holding that the legal position established in a coordinate bench precedents in the same matter squarely governs the proceedings.

What the court decided

AI extract

Nikita Gupta Vs Raj High Court and Anr. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

{1} DB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4645/2014

¶2

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

¶3

O R D E R

¶4

D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4645/ 2014

¶5

NIKITA GUPTA Vs. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL, JODHPUR & ANR.

¶6

DATE:19.05.2014

¶7

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AMITAVA ROY HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶8

Mr. Tanveer Ahmed, for the petitioner. ***** BY THE COURT (PER HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) :

¶9

Heard Mr. Tanveer Ahmed, the learned counsel for the

¶10

petitioner.

¶11

Briefly stated the facts relevant are that the petitioner responded to the advertisement dated 25.11.2013, issued by the Registrar(Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, initiating a process for direct recruitment to the post in the cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate First Class, in terms of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (as amended) (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Rules'). According to the petitioner, she is specially abled(physically handicapped) and otherwise belongs to the general category. She applied in the general category, particularly mentioning that she was specially abled. In the preliminary examination under the scheme of the process of selection prescribed by the Rules, she has

¶12

{2} DB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4645/2014

¶13

secured 71 marks. She is aggrieved by denial of her selection in the quota of posts earmarked for physically handicapped persons. Her representation to intimate her the cut-off marks of the candidates of the handicapped category having been rejected, she has approached this Court seeking judicial intervention contending that omission on the part of the respondents to declare the cut-off marks separately for the physically handicapped candidates has been in violation of the Rules thus vitiating the process.

¶14

A coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Writ Pet it ion No.3115/2014- Vikram Singh Chouhan Vs. St at e of Raj ast han & Ors., (d/d 16.05.2014), on a detailed examination of this plea as well as other incidental contentions, has rejected the challenge, as laid in the instant petition. We are of the view that the determination made in Vikram Singh Chouhan Vs. St at e of Raj ast han & Ors.(supra), squarely governs the issues raised in the instant proceeding.

¶15

This petition is, thus, dismissed in the same lines.

¶16

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J. (AMITAVA ROY),C.J.

¶17

/ KKC/

¶18

Certificate:

¶19

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

¶20

KAMLESH KUMAR P.A.

Nikita Gupta v. Raj High Court and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Nikita Gupta v. Raj High Court and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Karan Meena Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Suresh Chand Vs Shri Deepak Upreti and Ors.

Rpsc Vs Parvinder Kaur and Ors.

State of Raj. through P.K. Agrawal,Rhjs Vs Rajendra Sharma Editor Dainik Bhaskar

Monika Chaoudhary Anr. Vs Addi District and Session

Om Singh Khurant Vs State of Raj and Ors.