Allowed

Leela Dhar v. R P S C Ajmer

Rajasthan HC20 Mar 2018CW/23412/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition where counsel for parties accepted that the controversy was resolved by prior coordinate benches. The court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner, holding an RS-CIT Certificate, for appointment on merit subject to vacancy, following Rule 40(iii).

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be considered for appointment on the post of LDC on merit if vacancy exists in his category.

Leela Dhar Vs R P S C Ajmer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 23412/2017

¶3

Leela Dhar S/o Nathu Ram, By Caste Jat, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Vpo Jhariya, Tehsil Churu, District Churu (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Rajasthan Public Service Commission Through Secretary, Jaipur Road, Ajmer.

¶7

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surya Prakash For Respondent(s) :

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶9

Order

¶10

20/03/2018

¶11

Counsel for the parties are not in dispute on the proposition that the controversy raised in the instant writ application stands resolved in view of the adjudication by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bal Kishan v. State (Panchayati Raj Dept.) & Anr.: SBCWP No.11807/2014, decided on 5^th May, 2017, which has also been relied upon by another Coordinate Bench of this Court in its subsequent adjudication in the case of Pinkey Gupta v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: SBCWP No.19652/2017, decided on 24^th November, 2017, observing thus:

¶12

“4. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties. This Court has already taken a view on the identical issue by passing the order dated 05.05.2017 in the case of Bal Kishan Vs. State (supra), operative portion whereof reads as under:-

¶13

“In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, because of the

¶14

(2 of 3)

¶15

[CW-23412/2017]

¶16

order passed by the Commissioner, Specially Abled Persons, Rajasthan Jaipur, the respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioner as valid, especially for the reason that the petitioner before his selection has finally obtained RSCIT Certificate.

¶17

It is further clarified that this Court has merely held that the application submitted by the petitioner is to be held in order and will not be rejected on the ground that he is not having RSCIT before submission of the application form. However, it is further ordered that the petitioner upon making to the selection Zone on merit, qua the category in which he has applied, shall be considered for the appointment, provided post is vacant, in respect of the category of the petitioner.”

¶18

The Court following the same view allows the instant writ petition and directs the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of LDC as she is having RS-CIT certificate and if she is coming in the merit list, she should also be considered for appointment, provided the post is vacant, in respect to the same category in which the petitioner has applied. 6. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.”

¶19

In view of the above; the instant writ application succeeds and is hereby allowed. The respondents would consider the case of the petitioner for appointment strictly in accordance with his merit and in the backdrop of the interpretation of Rule 40(iii) of the Rajasthan Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Rules, 2011.

¶20

(3 of 3)

¶21

[CW-23412/2017]

¶22

In case, the petitioner is otherwise found suitable, the respondents would proceed further and accord appointment to the petitioner, if any vacancy is available of the category which the petitioner belongs.

¶23

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J.

¶24

SS/99

Leela Dhar v. R P S C Ajmer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Leela Dhar v. R P S C Ajmer

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

Saroj Garwa Vs State Panchayati Raj Anr.

Rajendra Sharma Vs Naveen Mahajan and Ors.

Kalyan Vs Kalyan Singh andORS

Saroj Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Gouri Shankar Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Hemraj Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp