In a contempt petition regarding non-compliance with a writ order, the court noted that respondents had substantially complied regarding the petitioner's eligibility due to failing the revised cut-off marks. The petition was disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.1411/ 2012 in
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3980/ 2011 Ratan Lal Choudhary
vs.
Shri Manjeet Singh, Chairman and Managing Director, RSRTC & Anr.
Date of Order : 10.02.2016
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL
Mr.R.B. Sharma(Ganthola), counsel for petitioner. Mr.Vinayak Joshi, counsel for respondents.
The petitioner has alleged disobedience and non compliance of the order dated 19.12.2011 passed by the Single Bench of this Court. The operative part of this order dated 19.12.2011 is reproduced hereunder: -
“In view of the facts given above, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents to open the result of trade test of petitioner and if his total marks comes to more than cut off marks for SBC category to the post of Conductor, he may be considered for appointment subject to other eligibility. Necessary consideration made be made within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.”
The petitioner has sought modification of the
aforementioned order dated 19.12.2011 and vide order dated 03.03.2012, the modification was allowed and the word 'SBC', as mentioned in the order dated 19.12.2011, was to be read as OBC.
In response to notice, the respondents have filed reply
2
wherein it is stated that earlier the cut off for the written examination in the OBC category was 77 and later on, in pursuance to the judgment passed in the case of Nar pat Dan vs. RSRTC & An r [ S.B. Civil W r it Pet it ion No.2 1 8 3 / 2 0 1 1 , decided on 3 1 .5 .2 0 1 1 ] , the cut off marks were revised and it was 71 for the OBC category. It is further stated that the petitioner, who was considered in the OBC category, had secured only 69 marks in the written examination, meaning thereby, that he could not reach the previous as well as the revised cut off marks, which were 77 and 71 respectively. The respondents have also referred to judgment passed by this Court in the case of Nir m al Ku m ar Jain & Or s. vs. RSRTC & Or s [ SB Civil W r it Pet it ion No.14 7 1 0 / 2 0 1 1 , decided on 0 2 .0 9 .2 0 1 1 ] and stated that the petitioner's case was considered in accordance with law and he was not entitled to be appointed as he had secured less than the cut off marks in the written examination.
In view of the reply filed by the respondents, I am satisfied that the respondents have at least substantially complied with the direction of the Court. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Rule discharged. It shall, of course, be open to the petitioner, if so advised, to challenge the action of the respondents, in accordance with law.
(ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL),J.
Mohit
3
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. Mohit Tak, P.A.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondents have substantially complied with the direction to consider the petitioner for appointment based on revised cut-off marks.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nar pat Dan vs. RSRTC & Anr.Referred¶16
Nar pat Dan vs. RSRTC & An r [ S.B. Civil W r it Pet it ion No.2 1 8 3 / 2 0 1 1 , decided on 3 1 .5 .2 0 1 1 ]
Nirmal Kumar Jain & Ors. vs. RSRTC & Ors.Referred¶16
Nir m al Ku m ar Jain & Or s. vs. RSRTC & Or s [ SB Civil W r it Pet it ion No.14 7 1 0 / 2 0 1 1 , decided on 0 2 .0 9 .2 0 1 1 ]
Ratan Lal Choudhary
Shri Manjeet Singh, Chairman and Managing Director, RSRTC & Anr.
Anupinder Singh Grewal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
