Disposed

Amita Patel v. State Medical and Healthors

Rajasthan HC2 Sept 2015CW/12086/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging non-appointment of petitioner despite securing marks above cut-off. Court directed Additional Director (Administration) to examine reasons for exclusion and decide on appointment within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondent submitted to provide reasons within six weeks regarding petitioner's non-appointment despite securing higher marks than required cut-offs.

Amita Patel Vs State Medical and Healthors — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 12086/2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. ORDER

¶4

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 12086/2015 WITH S.B. CIVIL MISC. STAY APPLICATION NO. 10570/2015

¶5

AMITA PATEL VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANOTHER.

¶6

DATE OF ORDER : 02.09.2015

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

¶8

Mr. Narpat Singh Shekhawat, for the petitioner.

¶9

BY THE COURT:

¶10

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner contenting that the respondents issued advertisement dated 26.02.2013 for recruitment on the post of Dental Technician, Eye Assistant and Junior Scientific Assistant. By the said advertisement, 94 posts of Dental Technician have been advertised. The petitioner applied for the post of Dental Technician under SBC Female category. After scrutinising the application forms, the respondents have issued a provisional list of eligible candidates for the post of Dental Technician for document verification vide order dated 05.07.2013. The name of the petitioner has also been included in that list and she has secured 63.11 marks under SBC category. Recently, the respondents have issued list of cut off marks for all the category vide order dated 31.07.2015 according to which cut off marks under General Category are 47.95, under General Women-41.01, OBC-37.19 and SC-37.61. The respondents have also

¶11

¶12

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 12086/2015

¶13

issued provisional select list, but name of the petitioner has not been mentioned in that list, despite her securing more marks than cut off marks of SBC as well as General category. Hence, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

¶14

Having regard to the facts aforesaid, the petitioner is required to approach Respondent No. 2, Additional Director (Administration), Medical and Health Services, Rajasthan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur by way of filing representation along with copy of this order, who shall examine as to why the petitioner has not been given appointment despite securing 63.11 marks whereas cut off marks in SBC category and General category are 37.19 and 47.95 respectively and if the petitioner is found to have secured more marks then cut off marks of SBC/General category, then consider her case for appointment on the post of Dental Technician or otherwise give reasons for not doing so within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of representation.

¶15

With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed of. Stay application also stands disposed of.

¶16

(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J.

¶17

Manoj, S.NO.87. “All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.” MANOJ NARWANI Personal Assistant.

Amita Patel v. State Medical and Healthors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amita Patel v. State Medical and Healthors

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

Imran Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Vimla and Ors. Vs Swarn Singh and Anr.

Mishri Lal Vs State

Abdul Salam Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Stm Kamar Sultana Vs Dy Director DEPARTMENTandANR

Dinesh Kumar Meena Vs State of Raj and Ors.