Disposed

Sandeep Sharma and Anr. v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC29 Nov 2017CW/22079/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan granted liberty to petitioners to submit representations for age relaxation in recruitment for Constable (General) and (Driver) posts down. The Court directed the State Government to decide on the representation within four weeks and to accept offline applications while pending.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file individual representations on age relaxation; respondents to accept offline forms and decide within four weeks.

Sandeep Sharma and Anr. Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22079 / 2017

¶3

Sandeep Sharma S/o Ram Swapup Sharma, Aged About 27 Years, R/o 116/20, Agarwal Farm; Mansarovar, laipur

¶4

2. Pradeep Kumar Sharma S/o Ram Swapup Sharma, Aged About 24 Years, R/o 116/20, Agarwal Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur

¶5

----Petitioners
>
Versus -
LoB&st2ry, Secretariat, Jaipur.
J i. 8'"'s
neral of Police, Police
retary Department of Personnel,
Secretariat, Jaipur, ~ajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) :
For Respondent(s) :

¶6

HON'BLE MR. J
29/11/2017

¶7

a mandamus against the respondents-State T2.G ; hard copy of the petiti regard to the post of Constable (General) and (Driver) for advertisement of the year 2017 by giving the age relaxation of upper age limit in view of the notification dated 23.9.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further prayed that the petitioners may be permitted to appear in the written examination and in case, they succeed, they may be given appointment with all the consequential benefits.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners have further placed reliance on an order dated 10.11.2017 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13917/2017, (Kishore Singh Gehlot Vs. State of

¶9

Rjasthan & Ors.). The Co-ordinate Bench at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, while considering the similar grievance of the candidates like petitioners, has disposed of the writ petition.

¶10

Dr. A.S. Khangarot, AGC, counsel for the respondent also submits that the order

¶11

pper age, however, he submits that the direction so not be taken as a direction to decide the petitioner's representation for gr pper age limit in a particular manner.

¶12

The Principal Se sing the order dated 10.11.2017 has taken , gment of the Division Bench dated 25.3.2014 . Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1151/20 Public . Service Commission Vs. Ma wherein the Division Bench has declined relaxation and has further set aside the ,Bench dated 26.8.2013 --. granting benefit of the

¶13

The Co-ordinate Bench at Jodhpur, considered the judgment dated 3.5.2017 and disposed of the writ petition in the following

¶14

"Looking to the innocuous order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur, vide its judgment dated 03.05.2017, this Court feels inclined to issue identical directions in the present petition, as under:-

¶15

Therefore, in the interest of justice, each petitioner is granted liberty to make representation to the State Government on the anvil of Rule 46 of Rules of 1989 and other corelated rules applicable to the case of relaxation with regard to the age. It is ordered that in case the representation is filed by the petitioner in individual capacity within two weeks from today, then the State Government shall take decision upon the representation so filed within a period of four weeks, independently without persuaded by any observation made by this Court. It is further ordered that till the representation to be made b,y thep@EetitTo$iersP.is considered by the state-"f&8jy&nrn&t~ the &rcf$JJdent shall accep@h?% application form of he gRitioners offlihepmd .a i. proceed with the proc.eq~ of l. .* a*. reeutment considering the application oT ,eayh vetitioner to be in order.

¶16

@1t -7 is further ordered that till the representatid'n .'" to be made by the petitioners is considered by the State Govern e respondent shall

¶17

Government ations of the shall be at libe

¶18

The present writ petition is also decided in the same terms as the decided by order dated 10.11.2017 at Principal Seat, Jodhpur.

¶19

The respondents are directed to decide petitioners' representation or take a common decision applicable to all for

¶20

grant of relaxation in upper age limit, on or before 15.12.2017.

¶21

The respondents are directed to accept offline forms (manually) of the petitioners which they are required to give before last date i.e. 30.11.2017.

¶22

The direction to decide the petitioners' representation for grant of relaxation in the upper age limit has been issued with a view to ensure speedy and same may not be taken petitioner's in a particular manner. w 9 Accordingly the present writ petition is disposed of.

¶23

KUMAR

Sandeep Sharma and Anr. v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Sharma and Anr. v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Rammulal Vs State and Ans

Om Prakash Gurjar Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Tara and Anr. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Surendra Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rakesh Kumar Gurjar and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Manish Kumar Pancholi and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.