Disposed

Shiv Narayan andORS v. State Home Departmentors

Rajasthan HC23 Feb 2016CW/2226/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenging denial of Home Guard reappointment were directed to approach the Director General of Police via representation instead of this Court, resulting in the writ petition's disposal without direct adjudication on the Rules' applicability.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to approach the Director General of Police with a representation; writ petition and stay application dismissed.

Shiv Narayan andORS Vs State Home… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2226/2016

¶3

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

¶4

ORDER

¶5

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2226/2016 WITH S.B. CIVIL MISC. STAY APPLICATION NO. 1887/2016

¶6

SHIV NARAYAN & OTHERS VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS.

¶7

DATE OF ORDER : 23.02.2016

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

¶9

Mr. S.S. Mahla, for the petitioners.

¶10

BY THE COURT:

¶11

Grievance of petitioners is that despite their rendering services as Home Guards with respondents continuously from the year 1995/1996 till 31.07.2009, the respondents are not allowing their reappointment as such, pursuant to order No.10423-61 dated 01.05.2013 thereby permitting enrollment of willing volunteers who were discharged for reasons other than disciplinary and medical grounds against the vacancies of future years subject to the conditions of fulfillment of expected norms and selection process as per the Rules, as in the application form the respondents have put condition no.7 to the effect that earlier discharged Home Guards would not be eligible for recruitment. The petitioners were not discharged either on disciplinary or medical ground. That condition of the respondents in the application form is contrary to Rule 8(ii) of the Rajasthan Home Guard Rules, 1962, and also the order

¶12

¶13

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2226/2016

¶14

dated 01.05.2013 of the respondent no.3. Rule 8(ii) of the Rules of 1962 provides that a person appointed shall be entitled for reappointment.

¶15

Having regard to the controversy raised in this writ petition, instead of directly entertaining the same, the petitioners are required to approach the respondent no.2 – the Director General of the Police Home Guards and Civil Defence, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, by way of filing representation along-with a copy of this order, who shall, after verifying the facts, consider and decide the same by appropriate speaking order addressing their grievance within a period of two months from the date of its making, or otherwise give reasons.

¶16

Writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. This also

¶17

disposes of stay application.

¶18

(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J.

¶19

Manoj, S.NO.75.

¶20

“All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.” MANOJ NARWANI Personal Assistant.

Shiv Narayan andORS v. State Home Departmentors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Narayan andORS v. State Home Departmentors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ani Vs Kailash and Ors.

Vijay Kumar Saini and Anr. Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Hariram Saini Thr Lrs and Others Vs Smt Vimla Sharma and Others

Prabhu Lal Vs Kripal Singh and Ors.

Jaggeep Singh Vs State Medical and Healthanr

Harish Soni Chatwani Vs Devendra Sethi andANR