Dismissed

Pawan Singh Gurjar v. State of Raj and Anr.

Rajasthan HC15 Sept 2016CW/6272/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the petitioner's ineligibility for the post of Statistical Officer. The court held that the petitioner lacked the mandatory one year of experience as on the final submission date and applicable relaxation rules did not extend to experience requirements. The impugned order was upheld.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed finding no merit; order dated 15.01.2015 upheld.

Pawan Singh Gurjar Vs State of Raj and Anr. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6272/2015 Pawan Singh Gurjar son of Shri Ram Ji Lal Gurjar, aged about 27 years, resident of House No.4, Gurjar Mohalla, Govind Nagar (East), Park Street, Amer Road, Jaipur

¶4

Versus

¶5

(1)State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Department of Planning, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶6

(2)Rajasthan Public Service Commission through its Secretary, Ajmer.

¶7

Date of Order : 15.09.2016

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI

¶9

Mr. Divesh Sharma, for the petitioner.

¶10

By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 15.01.2015 whereby the petitioner was held ineligible for the post of Statistical Officer. It is for want of experience of one year as on 31.08.2013. It was the last date for submission of the application in the light of the last corrigendum dated 24.4.2013.

¶11

The respondents issued an advertisement on 20.01.2012 for the post of Statistical Officer. As per the terms of advertisement and rules, a candidate was required to be in possession of the educational qualification as well as the experience. The petitioner submitted

¶12

¶13

application form but he was not possessing the required experience of the post as on 31.08.2013. The aforesaid is even coming out from the experience certificate, which does not show experience of one year as on 31.08.2013.

¶14

In the light of the aforesaid, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. The required experience should have been after obtaining the educational qualification but even if it is ignored at this stage, the petitioner was not having the required experience of one year on the last date of submission of application i.e. 31.08.2013.

¶15

The requirement of experience is to be dealt with separately than of the educational qualification. For the educational qualification, a candidate is appearing or appeared in the final year of required educational course for the post is also eligible to apply and appear for the selection, subject to possession of required educational qualification on or before the date of interview, as the selection in this is based on interview alone. It is as per the amended provision but it does not apply to the experience.

¶16

¶17

In view of above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶18

Sunita/24

Pawan Singh Gurjar v. State of Raj and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Singh Gurjar v. State of Raj and Anr.

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

Amitabh Bhargava Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Babu Lal BAIRWAandORS Vs State Medical and Healthors

Ram Kishan Vs State

Dev Sharma @ Pintu @ Devendra @ Daulatra Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Ramkishore Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Amrik Singh @ Sonu and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp