Disposed

Guman Singh and Ors. v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC15 Dec 2017CW/23177/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order directs the State of Rajasthan to accept offline application forms for Constable posts pending age relaxation representations. The court granted liberty to petitioners to file individual representations within two weeks, with the State to decide within four weeks without being bound by a specific outcome, while accelerating the recruitment process.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to accept offline forms and decide on age relaxation representations within four weeks from 15.12.2017; petitioners granted liberty to file representations.

Guman Singh and Ors. Vs State of Raj and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23177 / 2017

¶3

Guman Singh S/o Hari Prasad Gurjar, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Tudawali, Post Padla, Teh. Todabhim, Distt. Karauli (Raj.)

¶4

Devendra Singh S/o Chaman Singh, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Talimpura, Post Nawali, Teh. Bayana, Distt. Bharatpur (Raj.).

¶5

Suresh Chand Meena S/o Indraj Meena, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Post Lalwas, Teh. Jamwaramgarh, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.).

¶6

Vishnu Kumar Sharma S/o Hari Narayan Sharma, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Lordi, Post Dhamana, Teh. Mojmabad, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.).

¶7

Shiv Charan Sharma S/o Ummed Mal Sharma, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Post Jirota, Teh. Arai, Distt. Ajmer (Raj.).

¶8

Jeetendra Kumar Sharma S/o Gireesh Chand Sharma, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Post Maniya, Teh. Dholpur, Distt. Dholpur (Raj.).

¶9

Raghavendra Sharma S/o Ram Gopal Sharma, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Post Maniya, Teh. Dholpur, Distt. Dholpur (Raj.).

¶10

Yagyadutt Sharma S/o Geetaram Sharma, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Siyapura, Post Bothpur, Teh. Dholpur, Distt. Dholpur (Raj.).

¶11

Suresh Mahiyan S/o Babu Lal Mahiyan, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Post Paliyas, Teh. Degana, Distt. Nagaur (Raj.).

¶12

Ramesh Kumar Meena S/o Laxmi Narayan Meena, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Post Adalvada Kalan, Teh. Choth Ka Barwada, Distt. Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)

¶13

Mamraj Gadhawal S/o Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Sevadbadi Via Fhaglana, Post Dhodsikar, Teh. Dhod, Distt. Sikar (Raj.)

¶14

Sube Singh S/o Shri Sukhram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Ramnathpura, Post Bhobiya, Via Kajda, Teh. Surajgarh, Distt. Jhunjhunu. (Driver Post)

¶15

Rajesh Kumar Alariya S/o Shri Shiv Chand Alariya, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Badh Ki Dhani, Post Badwasi, Teh. Nawalgarh, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶16

Ramdayal Choudhary S/o Bhanwar Lal Choudhary, Aged About

¶17

(2 of 6)

¶18

[CW-23177/2017]

¶19

28 Years, R/o Village Gaiga, Post Gagardu, Teh. Dudu, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.)

¶20

Basram Choudhary S/o Ugama Ram Choudhary, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Gaiga, Post Gagardu, Teh. Dudu, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.)

¶21

Mahesh Kumar Chahar S/o Shri Jhabarmal Chahar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Basni, Post Bairas, Teh. Laxmangarh, Distt. Sikar (Raj.)

¶22

Mukesh Choudhary S/o Ram Lal Jat, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Post Parana, Teh. Tonk, Distt. Tonk (Raj.)

¶23

Shanker Lal Jat S/o Shri Ramdev Jat, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Rambha, Post Dangarthal, Teh. Niwai, Distt. Tonk (Raj.)

¶24

Girdhari Lal Sharma S/o Dharmraj Sharma, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village and Post Jirota, Teh. Arai, Distt. Ajmer (Raj.)

¶25

Sundar Singh Meena S/o Shrawan Kumar Meena, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Post Hameerpur, Teh. Bansoor, Distt. Alwar (Raj.)

¶26

Vinod Kumar Sharma S/o Ram Kishore Sharma, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village & Post Bhateri, Teh. Bassi, Via Lawan, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.)

¶27

Jitendra Meena S/o Shyoji Lal Meena, Aged About 31 Years, R/o VPO Ronija, Teh. Hindoli, Distt. Bundi (Raj.)

¶28

Raman Kumar Saini S/o Shri Manohar Lal Saini, Aged About 29 Years, R/o VPO Kotputli, Teh. Kotputli, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.)

¶29

Devender Kumar Prahalad Ray, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Ward No. 3 Sujawas, Via Ranoli, Sujawas, Sikar (Raj.).

¶30

Mukesh Kumar Gurjar S/o Kailash Chand Gurjar, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Nimali, Post Kolwa, Teh. Dausa, Distt. Dausa (Raj.).

¶31

----Petitioners

¶32

Versus

¶33

The State of Rajasthan Through Its Home Secretary, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶34

The Director General of Police, Police Headquarter, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶35

The Secretary, Department of Personnel, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

(3 of 6)

[CW-23177/2017]

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh Adv.

¶40

For Respondent(s) : Dr. A.S. Khangarot Add. Govt. Counsel

¶41

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

¶42

Order

¶43

15/12/2017

¶44

The present petitioners have sought a mandamus against the respondents-State to accept the application form online or hard copy of the petitioners with 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 the appear in the written examination and in case, they succeed, they may be given appointment with all the consequential benefits.

¶45

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 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.

¶46

Dr. A.S. Khangarot, AGC, counsel for the respondent also submits that the Principal Seat at Jodhpur has passed the order directing the candidates to submit their representation for grant of relaxation in upper age, however, he submits that the direction so given may not be taken as a direction to decide the petitioner’s

¶47

(4 of 6)

¶48

[CW-23177/2017]

¶49

representation for grant of relaxation in upper age limit in a particular manner.

¶50

The Principal Seat at Jodhpur, while passing the order dated 10.11.2017 has taken into account the judgment of the Division Bench dated 25.3.2014 passed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1151/2013, Rajasthan Public Service Commission Vs. Mahendra Kumar & Ors. , wherein the Division Bench has declined to grant benefit of age relaxation and has further set aside the order of Single Bench dated 26.8.2013 granting benefit of the age relaxation.

¶51

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

¶52

“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:-

¶53

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.

¶54

It is further ordered that till the representation to be made by the petitioners is considered by the State Government, the respondent shall accept the application form of the petitioners offline and proceed with the process of recruitment considering the application of each petitioner to be in order.

¶55

It is further ordered that till the representation to be made by the petitioners is considered by

¶56

(5 of 6)

¶57

[CW-23177/2017]

¶58

the State Government, the respondent shall accept the application form of the petitioners offline and proceed with the process of recruitment considering the application of each petitioner to be in order.

¶59

It is further clarified that in case the State Government reject the representations of the petitioner or petitioners, candidature of the petitioner/petitioners shall be canceled and they shall be at liberty to assail the decision of the State Government. However, in case the State accepts representation and grant relaxation, the respondents shall proceed ahead with the matter. It is further clarified that the Court has only ordered that till the decision of the representation, application of the petitioners shall be accepted offline without commenting upon the rights of the State Government to grant or refuse relaxation qua the age of a candidate.”

¶60

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

¶61

The respondents are directed to decide petitioner’s representation or take a common decision applicable to all for grant of relaxation in upper age limit, on or before 15.12.2017.

¶62

The respondents are directed to accept offline forms (manually) of the petitioners which they are required to give before last date i.e. 25.12.2017.

¶63

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 redressal of their grievance and same may not be taken to be a direction to decide the petitioner’s representation for grant of relaxation in upper age limit in a particular manner.

¶64

(6 of 6)

¶65

[CW-23177/2017]

¶66

Accordingly the present writ petition is disposed of.

¶67

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR)J.

¶68

Monika/114

Guman Singh and Ors. v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guman Singh and Ors. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Murari Lal Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Chaturbhuj and Ors. Vs Harpreet Kaur and Ors.

Chaturbhuj and Anr. Vs Mohd Khalid

Rajendra Kumar Vs Wakf Committee, Magrol, through

Vikram Singh Hada Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Smt Saroj Bai Vs State of Raj and Ors.