Disposed

Arjun Birawat v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC30 Oct 2018CW/13525/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petition challenging recruitment for a Safai Karamchari post was disposed of. The court relied on Ravi Jajot, directing the petitioner to approach a newly constituted redressal committee regarding grievances instead of substantive judicial review.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of. The petitioner was directed to submit a copy of the judgment along with a representation to the constituted redressal committee.

Arjun Birawat Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ No. 13525/2018

¶3

Arjun Birawat S/o Sh. Shantilal Ji Birawat, Aged About 26 Years, B/c Birawat Sc/st, Adharsh Basti, Bali, District Pali

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director Cum Joint Secretary, Local Self Department, Govt Of Rajasthan Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur

¶7

Municipal Board, Sumerpur, Through Its Executive Officer, District Pali.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Vyas. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shyam Paliwal for Mr. Rajesh Panwar, AAG.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶11

Order

¶12

30/10/2018

¶13

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner raising issues pertaining to the recruitment for the post of Safai Karamchari.

¶14

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the issues raised in the present writ petition are squarely covered by the judgment in Ravi Jajot & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : SBCWP No.10496/2018, decided on 30.08.2018, wherein even for the issues, which are not covered by the judgment, it was directed that the petitioners therein would represent before the respondents and a further direction has been given for consideration by a proper redressal committee.

¶15

(2 of 2)

¶16

[CW-13525/2018]

¶17

It is further submitted that pursuant to the said direction, a redressal committee has been constituted by order dated 27.09.2018 by the respondents and therefore, in light of the said judgment and constitution of the committee, the petitioners may also approach the said committee with the grievances as raised in the present writ petition.

¶18

In the case of Ravi Jajot (supra), it was directed as under :-

¶19

“97. All these writ petitions arising out of recruitment process of Safai Karamchari in pursuance of the advertisement dated 13.04.2018, stand disposed of, as per the above observations and directions. However, it is made clear that any issue, which has been pleaded, but not decided by this judgment, shall require the petitioners to file representation before the respondents, which shall be decided by the respondents by passing a respective speaking order, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.”

¶20

In view of the direction No. 71, 73, 85, 90, 92 & 97 of the above judgment and the fact that a committee has been constituted, the writ petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of with similar directions as given in the case of Ravi Jajot (supra). The petitioner would be free to submit a copy of the judgment alongwith the representation.

¶21

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶22

sumit-144

Arjun Birawat v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun Birawat v. State of Rajasthan

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

Geetika Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan

Pushpa Parmar Vs State of Rajasthan

Sangeeta Vs State of Rajasthan

Poonam Meghwal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Vanita Trivedi Vs State of Rajasthan

Samundar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan