Allowed

Anil Kumar v. the University Grants Commission

Rajasthan HC18 Dec 2018CW/13990/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Jodhpur allowed a writ petition seeking 5% marks relaxation and assessment of good academic record for SC/ST/OBC and PH candidates under UGC regulations. The court followed earlier directions in Lalit Kumar, applying the mandate only to petitioners who participated in the selection process where results were not finalized.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents to provide 5% marks relaxation and assess good academic record for eligible categories, applicable to petitioners who participated in the selection process.

Anil Kumar Vs the University Grants… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ No. 13990/2018

¶3

Anil Kumar S/o Shri Balram, Aged About 31 Years, Village Dholpaliya, Post Kalana, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The University Grants Commission, New Delhi Through Its Secretary, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi.

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its Secretary.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepesh Singh Beniwal. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Digvijay Singh Jasol. Ms. Sweta Bora for Mr. Anil Bissa.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶12

Order

¶13

18/12/2018

¶14

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by judgment in the case of Lalit Kumar v. University Grants Commission & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7545/2017, decided on 28.11.2017.

¶15

In the said judgment it was, inter alia, directed by the Court as under:-

¶16

“19. Thus in view of the aforesaid observations the present writ petitions are allowed and the respondents are directed to provide relaxation of 5% marks at UG Level, PG Level and for assessment of good academic record to the candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC and PH Category as

¶17

(2 of 2)

¶18

[CW-13990/2018]

¶19

being mandated by the UGC Regulations of 2010 and 2016. Since already an interim order was operating in favour of the petitioners and they have participated in favour of the petitioners and they have participated in the selection process for the post and the selections have not culminate into finality therefore the present order shall be applicable for all petitioners only as reinitiating the selection shall be prejudicial to all the participating candidates.”

¶20

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents is not in a position to dispute the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶21

In view of the submissions made, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed in light of and with similar directions as given in the case of Lalit Kumar (supra).

¶22

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶23

75-Rmathur/-

Anil Kumar v. the University Grants Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar v. the University Grants Commission

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

Govind Kumar Meghwal Vs State of Rajasthan

Balu Ram and Ors. Vs State of Raj. and Ors.

Dilip Katara Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra Kumar Joshi Vs Rsrtc and Ors.

Natwar Lal Vs Distt.and Sessions Judge, Dungarpur and Anr.

Murari Lal Vs State of Rajasthan