Disposed

Suman Bhati v. State of Raj and Anr.

Rajasthan HC13 Jul 2018CW/13347/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging non-appointment of petitioner despite merit eligibility. Court directs petitioner to submit representation regarding higher merit candidates' absence while vacancies remain. State to decide within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to submit comprehensive representation within two weeks; State-respondents to examine matter and decide within eight weeks.

Suman Bhati Vs State of Raj and Anr. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 13347/2018

¶3

Suman Bhati D/o Vaidraj Bhati , R/o Gahlot Colony, Chang Chitar Road, Beawar, District Ajmer, Rajasthan

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government Secretariat , Jaipur

¶7

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Ajmer

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Pratap Saini For Respondent(s) :

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶11

Order

¶12

13/07/2018

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that consequent upon document verification of the petitioner and her merit number being determined as 269; she has not been accorded appointment.

¶14

According to the learned counsel, a glance of order dated 2nd May, 2018, would reflect that candidates above the petitioner in merit were absent, and therefore, the State-respondents ought to have accorded appointment to the petitioner.

¶15

However, the respondents have sought opinion/clarification in this regard while the vacancies are still available. However, her representation addressed claiming appointment in the event of nonjoining of the candidates, above in the merit to the petitioner, has also failed to evoke any response.

(2 of 2)

[CW-13347/2018]

Heard.

From the materials available on record, more particularly, in view of the order dated 2nd May, 2018, the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner have some substance.

¶20

Accordingly, the instant writ proceedings are closed with a direction to the petitioner to address a comprehensive representation within two weeks hereinafter, enclosing a copy of the order dated 2nd May, 2018.

¶21

In case, a representation is so addressed; the State-respondents would examine the matter and claim of the petitioner for appointment in the event of non-joining of the candidates higher in merit to the petitioner and if the recruitment process still in progress.

¶22

The representation shall be determined by the State-respondents as expeditiously as possible; preferably, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order.

¶23

With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ application stands disposed off.

¶24

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J

¶25

Pcg/149

Suman Bhati v. State of Raj and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suman Bhati 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

Shashi Kala Parashar Wife of Shri Umesh Pathak Vs State of Rajasthan through Its Dy. Secretary, Elementary Education and Panchayatiraj Department

Rekha Mahar Vs the State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Secondary Education

Kavita Katara and Anr. Vs State of Raj Rural Dev and Panchayati

Mahendra Kumar Sharma S/O Madan Lal Sharma, Vs the State of Rajasthan Trhough Principal Education Secretary

Om Prakash Sharma and Ors. Vs State Education Department Ors.

Prahlad Meena S/O Gaindi Lal Meena Vs State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary,Government Secretariat