Court dismissed writ petitions filed by candidates challenging their non-selection for document verification. It held that mere allegation of less meritorious candidates being called, without proof of requisite experience, confers no right to verification.
The writ petitions were dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ No. 13900/2018
Taruna Vaishnav D/o Shanti Lal Vaishnav, Aged About 32 Years, Bhumlawas, Tehsil Mavli, District Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Medical And Health Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan,
Tilak Marg, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur, Raj.
3. The Additional Director (Admn.), Medical And Health
Services, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ No. 13533/2018
1. Magarm S/o Shri Kanaram Jat, Aged about 23 years, by caste
Jat, Thoriyon Ki Dhani, Nagana, Tehsil Pachpadra, District
Barmer.
2. Vimala Kumari D/o Ganesharam, aged 32 years, R/o Sadrau
Pohar, Post Nehdai, Tehsil & District Jaisalmer.
3. Durga Shankar Teli S/o Debilal Teli, aged 37 years, R/o Village
Akola, Tehsil Kotri, District Bhilwara.
4. Swaroop S/o Shri Gangaram, aged 24 years, r/o 34 Bablo Ka
Bas, Village Phitkasni, Via Banar, Post Kakelao, District Jodhpur.
5. Ganpat Ram Suthar S/o Shri Mukana Ram Suthar, aged 32
years, r/o Suthar Pada, Fatehgarh, Tehsil Fatehgarh, District
Jaisalmer.
6. Tarun Machara S/o Shri Ghanshyam Machara, aged 29 years,
r/o Bayatu Bheemji, Tehsil Bayatu, District Barmer.
7. Kuldeep Bhargawa S/o Shrilal, aged 42 years, r/o
Mahamandir, Jodhpur
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of
Medical And Health Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Additional Director (Admn.), Department of Medical And
(2 of 6)
[CW-13900/2018]
Health Services, Jaipur
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ No. 13612/2018
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
(3 of 6)
[CW-13900/2018]
For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s)
: Mr. Sharwan Singh Nirban : Mr. Rishabh Tayal
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
03/11/2018
S.B. Civil Writ No. 13900/2018
The present writ petition has been filed interalia raising grievance that the persons less meritorious than the petitioner have been called for document verification, whereas the petitioner has not been called for the same.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that petitioner did not have requisite experience of three years, for which she was not called for document verification.
Learned counsel for the petitioner could not refute this position. He could not show as to whether petitioner is having requisite experience of 3 years or not. His sole argument has been that candidates less meritorious than the petitioner have been called for document verification.
In considered opinion of this Court, the mere allegation that the persons having experience less than three years have been called for document verification, does not confer any right upon the petitioner to be called for document verification.
The present writ petition is thus dismissed.
S.B. Civil Writ No. 13533/2018
The present writ petition has been filed interalia raising grievance that the persons less meritorious than the petitioners
(4 of 6) [CW-13900/2018]
have been called for document verification, whereas the petitioners have not been called for the same.
Mr. Rishabh Tayal, learned counsel for the respondent informs that except for petitioner No.2 – Vimla Kumari all other petitioners (petitioners No.1, 3 to 7) have been called for the document verification in the second round.
In view of the above, the present writ petition qua petitioners No.1 to 7 (except petitioner No.2) had been rendered infructuous.
As far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent submits that petitioner did not have requisite experience of three years, for which she was not called for document verification.
Learned counsel for the petitioner could not refute this position. He could not show as to whether petitioner No.2 is having requisite experience of 3 years or not. His sole argument has been that candidates less meritorious than the petitioner have been called for document verification.
In considered opinion of this Court, the mere allegation that the persons having experience less than three years have been called for document verification, does not confer any right upon the petitioner to be called for document verification.
The present writ petition qua petitioner No.2 is thus dismissed, whereas petitions qua petitioners No.1, 3 to 7, is dismissed as having become infructuous.
S.B. Civil Writ No. 13612/2018
The present writ petition has been filed interalia raising grievance that the persons less meritorious than the petitioners
(5 of 6)
[CW-13900/2018]
have been called for document verification, whereas the petitioners have not been called for the same.
Mr. Rishabh Tayal, learned counsel for the respondent informs that except for petitioner Nos. 11 and 12 (Leela Joshi and Raghvendra Chandra respectively), all other petitioners (petitioner Nos.1 to 10 and 13) have been called for document verification in
the second round.
In view of the above, the present writ petition qua petitioner Nos.1 to 10 and 13 (except petitioners No.11 and 12) has been rendered infructuous.
As far as petitioners No.11 and 12 are concerned, learned counsel for the respondent submits that petitioner nos. 11 and 12 did not have requisite experience of three years, for which they were not called for document verification.
Learned counsel for the petitioner could not refute this position. He could not show as to whether petitioner No. 11 and 12 are having requisite experience of 3 years or not. His sole argument has been that candidates less meritorious than the petitioners have been called for document verification.
In considered opinion of this Court, the mere allegation that the persons having experience less than three years have been called for document verification, does not confer any right upon the petitioners to be called for document verification.
The present writ petition qua petitioner Nos. 11 and 12 is thus dismissed, whereas petition qua petitioner Nos. 1-10 and 13 is dismissed as having become infructuous.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
Anurag/6-8
(6 of 6) [CW-13900/2018]
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has the rights to be called for document verification given less meritorious candidates were selected for verification.
Whether lack of requisite experience disqualifies the petitioner from document verification.
Taruna Vaishnav
State Of Rajasthan
Lakh Singh
Sweeop Singh
Lakhi Singh
Magarm
DINESH MEHTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
