Disposed

Kapil Mishra andORS v. State Engergy Depors

Rajasthan HC16 Oct 2015CW/15496/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the respondents to decide pending representations of selected petitioners for Technical Helper (Group II) posts within three weeks. The court ordered the issuance of appointment orders if no specific reason exists for delay.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondents to consider representations and decide within three weeks; to issue appointment orders if merited; otherwise convey specific reasons for non-issuance.

Kapil Mishra andORS Vs State Engergy Depors — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

CWP – 15482/2015

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15454/2015

¶5

(Prem Chand Mahawar & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)

¶6

AND

¶7

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15456/2015

¶8

(Mukesh Choudhary & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)

¶9

AND

¶10

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15496/2015

¶11

(Kapil Mishra & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)

¶12

AND

¶13

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15482/2015

¶14

Jumma Khan & Ors. Vs.

¶15

The Chairman and Managing Director, Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Jaipur & Anr.

¶16

Date of Order : 16^th October, 2015

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI

¶18

Mr.Sanjay Sharma ] Dr.Vibhuti Bhusan Sharma ] Mrs.Shruti Dixit ], for the petitioner/s.

¶19

By the Court:

¶20

It is stated that in pursuance to the advertisement

¶21

for various posts, including the post of Technical Helper (Group II), the petitioners appeared in the selection and could find place in merit. They were called for verification of the documents. All

¶22

the petitioners appeared before the respondents but the appointment orders have not been issued for the post of Technical

¶23

CWP – 15482/2015

¶24

¶25

Helper (Group II) whereas all other posts have been filled by issuing appointment orders. The petitioners have made representations but no heed is paid to it. An application under the Right to Information Act was also submitted to know the reasons and therein, the appointments are said to be pending consideration.

¶26

Since the petitioners have already made the representations, the respondents are directed to consider it and decide the same within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. If the petitioners have already been selected and find place in merit, then in a routine process, the appointment order should have been issued. In any case, if specific reason exists not to issue the appointment orders, it should be conveyed the petitioners, otherwise the respondents would be expected to complete the process and as a consequence of which, appointment orders may be issued so as to redress the grievances of all the concerned. It is moreso when, appointment on the other posts said to have been given.

¶27

With the aforesaid directions, these writ petitions stand disposed of so as the stay applications.

¶28

Preeti, PA

¶29

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

¶30

Preeti Asopa P.A.

¶31

CWP – 15482/2015

¶32

Kapil Mishra andORS v. State Engergy Depors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kapil Mishra andORS v. State Engergy Depors

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

Majid Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Mr Nitin Makhija Vs Mrs Nitika

Raghubir Vs Subhash Chand Mehrashi and Others

Salli@Suleman Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Sadu Ram Vs Prabhat @ Giga and Ors.

Virendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp