Allowed

Vijay Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC26 Oct 2018CW/15890/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A coordinate bench of the High Court of Rajasthan allowed this writ petition regarding Safai Karamchari recruitment in terms of the judgment in Ravi Jajot, issuing directions to respondents to pass speaking orders on unresolved factual and legal issues within thirty days.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; direction to respondents to pass speaking orders on pending issues within 30 days.

Vijay Kumar 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. 15890/2018

¶3

Vijay Kumar S/o Shri Pappu Lal, Aged About 23 Years, Ambedkar Colony, Kachibasti, Bhilwara, District- Bhilwara

¶4

Kailash Cahndra Harijan S/o Shri Ladu Lal Harijan, Aged About 37 Years, Near Dalda Mill, Ambedkar Colony, Kachibasti, Bhilwara, District- Bhilwara

¶5

Vijay Kumar Channal S/o Shri Prakash Channel, Aged About 26 Years, Near Arihant Colony, Bapu Nagar, Bhilwara, District- Bhilwara

¶6

Surya Prakash Lot S/o Shri Ram Lal Lot, Aged About 24 Years, 66 F.c.i, Godam Road, Kalika Temple, Ambedkar Colony, Bhilwara, District- Bhilwara

¶7

Shivani Lot D/o Shri Gopal Lot, Aged About 19 Years, Arihant Hospital Ke Pass, Harijan Basti, Bhilwara, DistrictBhilwara

¶8

Deepmala W/o Shri Kishan Lal Harijan, Aged About 35 Years, Near Tagore School, Sanjay Colony, Bhilwara, District- Bhilwara

¶9

Indra Devi Azad W/o Shri Rajesh Azad, Aged About 44 Years, Near Shiv Mandir, Bapu Colony, Kashipuri Bhilwara District- Bhilwara

¶10

Vinay Azad S/o Shri Rajesh Azad, Aged About 26 Years, Near Shiv Mandir, Bapu Colony, Kashipuri Bhilwara District Bhilwara

¶11

Hemlata Azad D/o Shri Rajesh Azad, Aged About 24 Years, Near Shiv Mandir, Bapu Colony, Kashipuri Bhilwara, District Bhilwara

¶12

Rahul Azad S/o Shri Rajesh Azad, Aged About 26 Years, Near Shiv Mandir, Bapu Colony, Kashipuri, Bhilwara, District- Bhilwara

¶13

Kishan Lal Harijan S/o Shri Chotu Lal Harijan, Aged About 34 Years, Near Tagore School, Harijan Basti, Bhilwara, District Bhilwara

¶14

Daali Bai W/o Shri Pappu Lal, Aged About 38 Years, F.c.c.i Road, New Police Line, Bhilwara District - Bhilwara

¶15

Manju Devi W/o Shri Chotu Lal Harijan, Aged About 40 Years, Ambedkar Colony, Bhilwara, District- Bhilwara

¶16

(2 of 4)

¶17

[CW-15890/2018]

¶18

Lalit Kumar Channal S/o Shri Bheru Lal Channel, Aged About 33 Years, F.c.i. Road, Harijan Basti, Bhilwara, District- Bhilwara

¶19

Pradhuman Channal S/o Ashri Anil Kumar Channal, Aged About 20 Years, Harijan Basti, Kashipuri, Bhilwara, District- Bhilwara

¶20

Meena Kumari Harijan W/o Shri Hari Shankar Ghoran, Aged About 29 Years, Dalda Mill Near, Harijan Basti, Bhilwara, District- Bhilwara

¶21

Shiv Lal Harijan S/o Shri Seeta Ram Harijan, Aged About 34 Years, Regar Mohalla, Harijan Basti Bhilwara District Bhilwara

¶22

Ekta Katiyana W/o Shri Shiv Lal Katiyana, Aged About 25 Years, Regar Mohalla, Harijan Basti Bhilwara DistrictBhilwara

¶23

Banti Harijan S/o Shri Rajesh Kumar Harijan, Aged About 20 Years, Harijan Basti, Tejaji Chowk, Bhilwara, DistrictBhilwara

¶24

Radha Kishan S/o Shri Gopal Lal, Aged About 22 Years, F.c.i Road, Harijan Basti, Bhilwara, District Bhilwara

¶25

Vimal Kumar Ghawri S/o Shri Babulal Ghawri, Aged About 32 Years, Harijan Basti, Kashipuri Bhilwara District Bhilwara

¶26

Poonam Harijan W/o Shri Ravi Kandara, Aged About 26 Years, Jharot, Bhilwara District Bhilwara

¶27

Rahul Kumar Ghoran S/o Shri Murli Lal Ghoran, Aged About 26 Years, Sushil Nagar, Harijan Basti, Bhilwara, District- Bhilwara

¶28

Indra Devi W/o Shri Mool Chand, Aged About 44 Years, Harijan Basti, Mandia, Bhilwara, District- Bhilwara

¶29

Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Radhesham, Aged About 35 Years, Harijan Basti, Mehru Kala, Ajmer

¶30

Govind Kumar Ghosar S/o Shri Banshi Lal, Aged About 38 Years, Ward 12, Udaybhan Gate, Shahpura, DistrictBhilwara

¶31

----Petitioners

¶32

Versus

¶33

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director Cum Joint Secretary

¶34

(3 of 4)

¶35

[CW-15890/2018]

¶36

The Commissioner, Municipal Council, Bhilwara, District Bhilwara

¶37

The Municipal Council, Bhilwara, District- Bhilwara

¶38

----Respondents

¶39

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Rajveev Chouhan
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. M.S. Champawat for
	Mr. Rajesh Panwar, AAG

¶40

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶41

Order

¶42

26/10/2018

¶43

Learned counsel for the parties submit that the issues raised in the present writ petition are squarely covered by judgment of this Court in Ravi Jajot v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10496/2018 , decided on 30.8.2018 and, therefore, the present writ petition may also be decided in terms of the said judgment.

¶44

In the case of Ravi Jajot (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court after dealing with the issues, raised therein, inter alia, directed as under:-

¶45

“92. Before parting with this judgment, this Court makes it clear that any issue other than the issues dealt with by this Court in this judgment, which remains open, shall be represented by the petitioners to the respondents, and the respondents shall decide all those factual and legal issues by passing a respective speaking order in the cases of the petitioners, after giving them proper opportunity of hearing, strictly in accordance with law, as it is not possible for this Court to go into individual facts of individual petitioner in such exercise, and therefore, this Court directs the respondents to pass lawful and speaking orders in all those matters.

¶46

It is further made clear that the petitioners, whose issues have not been dealt with by this Court in this judgment, shall have the liberty to approach this

¶47

(4 of 4)

¶48

[CW-15890/2018]

¶49

Court again, after the respective representations are decided by the respondents, if so advised.

¶50

Such issues shall be decided by the respondents through a proper Redressal Committee to be constituted by the respondents themselves, in pursuance of aforesaid direction contained in this judgment, at the appropriate level, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

¶51

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.”

¶52

In view of the submissions made, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed in terms of judgment in the case of Ravi Jajot (supra) with similar directions as noticed hereinbefore.

¶53

A.K. Chouhan/-258

Vijay Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar 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

Mata Prasad Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Jaideep Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Bharat Patidar Vs State of Rajasthan

Magraj Jain Vs Dinesh Kumar and Ors.

Meenakshi Vs State of Rajasthan through Its Secretary

Bapulal Masar Vs State of Rajasthan