Dismissed

Lakh Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC3 Nov 2018CW/13612/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses three writ petitions filed by individuals challenging their non-selection for document verification in a recruitment process. The Court held that mere allegations of lower merit selection do not confer rights absent proof of requisite experience.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were dismissed as they failed to confer any right without proof of requisite experience; some were dismissed as infructuous.

Lakh Singh 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. 13900/2018

¶3

Taruna Vaishnav D/o Shanti Lal Vaishnav, Aged About 32 Years, Bhumlawas, Tehsil Mavli, District Udaipur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

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

¶6

(2 of 6)

¶7

[CW-13900/2018]

¶8

Health Services, Jaipur

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

S.B. Civil Writ No. 13612/2018

¶11

Lakh Singh S/o Shri Sumer Singh, aged 25 years, r/o Village Kui Inda, Tehsil Balesar, District Jodhpur.

¶12

Sawai Singh S/o Shri Dalpat Singh, aged 38 years, r/o Village Chamu, Tehsil Balesar, District Jodhpur.

¶13

Chhotu Singh S/o Deep Singh, aged 26 years, r/o Village and Post -Dera, Tehsil Balesar, District Jodhpur.

¶14

Swaroop Singh S/o Shri Dungar Singh, aged 26 years, r/o Village Chamu, Tehsil Balesar, District Jodhpur.

¶15

Khet Singh S/o Kumbh Singh, aged 24 years, r/o Village Chamu, Tehsil Balesar, District Jodhpur.

¶16

Samandar Singh S/o Malam Singh Inda, aged 23 years, r/o Village Bastawa mataji, Bastawa, Tehsil Balesar, District Jodhpur..

¶17

Lal Singh S/o Mhabat Singh, aged 39 years, r/o Village & Post Badora Baon, Tehsil & District Jaisalmer.

¶18

Daupal Singh s/o Karan Singh, aged 26 years, r/o Nayapura Jasol, Jasol, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer.

¶19

Tushar Soni S/o Ashok Soni, aged 22 years, r/o Village & Post Arthuna, Tehsil Garhi, District Banswara, Raj.

¶20

Lokesh Ameta S/o Moolshankar Ameta, by caste Brahmin, aged 21 years, R/o Bus Stand, Antarai, Tehsil Kumbhalgarh, Rajsamand.

¶21

Leela Joshi D/o Arjun Lal Joshi, by caste Brahmin, aged 39 years, R/o Narainpura, Post Badgaon, Tehsil Vallabhnagar, Udaipur.

¶22

Raghvendra Chandra Joshi S/o Arjun Lal Joshi, by caste Brahmin, aged 32 years, R/o Narainpura, Post Badgaon, Tehsil Vallabhnagar, Udaipur.

¶23

Tej Singh Rathore S/o Shri Mangilal Rathore, aged 39 years, R/o Malkosni Road, Bilara, District Jodhpur.

¶24

----Petitioners

¶25

Versus

¶26

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶27

The Additional Director (Admn.), Department of Medical And Health Services, Jaipur

----Respondents

(3 of 6)

[CW-13900/2018]

For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s)

¶32

: Mr. Sharwan Singh Nirban : Mr. Rishabh Tayal

¶33

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶34

Order

¶35

03/11/2018

¶36

S.B. Civil Writ No. 13900/2018

¶37

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.

¶38

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.

¶39

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.

¶40

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.

¶41

The present writ petition is thus dismissed.

¶42

S.B. Civil Writ No. 13533/2018

¶43

The present writ petition has been filed interalia raising grievance that the persons less meritorious than the petitioners

¶44

(4 of 6) [CW-13900/2018]

¶45

have been called for document verification, whereas the petitioners have not been called for the same.

¶46

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.

¶47

In view of the above, the present writ petition qua petitioners No.1 to 7 (except petitioner No.2) had been rendered infructuous.

¶48

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.

¶49

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.

¶50

¶51

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.

¶52

S.B. Civil Writ No. 13612/2018

¶53

The present writ petition has been filed interalia raising grievance that the persons less meritorious than the petitioners

¶54

(5 of 6)

¶55

[CW-13900/2018]

¶56

have been called for document verification, whereas the petitioners have not been called for the same.

¶57

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

¶58

the second round.

¶59

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.

¶60

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.

¶61

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.

¶62

¶63

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.

¶64

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶65

Anurag/6-8

¶66

(6 of 6) [CW-13900/2018]

Lakh Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakh Singh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bodu Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Supriya Munet Vs State of Rajasthan

Aidan Singh Vs Rsrtc and Anr.

Ramoo Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Shambhu Lal Jatiya Vs State of Rajasthan

Abdul Rauf Vs State of Rajasthan