Disposed

Bhartendra Kumar v. Stae of Raj

Rajasthan HC7 Jul 2017CW/10475/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge held that defects in the writ petition were waived. Directed the petitioner to address a comprehensive representation citing Datar Singh and Ajay Kumar Mishra cases. Ordered the respondent Commission to decide the representation via a reasoned order within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to address representation; respondent Commission directed to decide within four weeks. Writ and stay application disposed.

Bhartendra Kumar Vs Stae of Raj — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10475 / 2017

¶3

Bhartendra Kumar S/o Gopal Singh, Aged About 28 Years, R/o V/P Santpur, Tehsil Abu Road, District Sirohi, Rajasthan.

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Rajasthan Sub Ordinate and Ministerial Service Selection Board, State Agriculture Management Institution Premises, Durgapura, 3aipur

¶6

¶7

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Pratap Saini

¶8

For Respondent(s)

¶9

---.-A

¶10

HON'BEE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA Order

¶11

07/07/2037

¶12

Though the matter has been listed from the defect side, however, having regard to the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, for the present defects pointed out by the Registry are wa~ved.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very oirtset, submits that the controversy raised in the instant writ application is no more res-integra in view of the adjudication made by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ petition No. 9170/2012: Datar Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., which has been upheld by the Division Bench; wherein the respondent No.2 was directed to make necessary corrections in the application form submitted online by the petitioners and the persons alike on or before 13th September, 2012, if such persons point oclt the

¶14

errors by submitting representations on or before 24th September, 2012.

¶15

Learned counsel further submits that the opinion in the case of Datar Singh (supra) was also relied in the case of Ajay Kumar Mishra & Ors., which has been confirmed even by the Supreme Court in SLP No. 3673/2017, decided on 13~'' February, 2017.

¶16

It is further contended that the petitioner, at this stage, would be satisfied, if the respondent-Commission is directed to decide his representation, within a time frame, which he is ready and willing to address within two weeks hereinafter.

¶17

In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant writ proceedings are closed with a direction to the petitioner to address a comprehensive representation enclosing a copy of the order in the case of Datar Singh (supra) and in case of Ajay Kumar Mishra & Ors., wherein SLP has been declined.

¶18

In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid period, the respondent-Commission is directed to consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible; however, in no case later than four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order.

¶19

With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ as well as stay application stand disposed off.

¶20

(Vf ERENDR SINGH S1RADHANA)J.

Bhartendra Kumar v. Stae of Raj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhartendra Kumar v. Stae of Raj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Kankoria Vs State Revenue Department Ors.

Gopal Prasad Vs State

Bhuvnesh Kumar Singhal and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Montosh Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Krishan Kant Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Shri Narayan Pvt. Industrial Training Ins Vs U O I and Ors.