The Rajasthan High Court, Bench at Jaipur, disposed of this writ petition in the coordinate bench of the earlier case of Dharmendra Kumar Yadav, which the petitioner counsel cited as resolving the controversy regarding recruitment grievances.
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 BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writs No. 6699/2018
Leelaram Saini S/o Shri Kailash Chand Saini, B/c Saini (Obc), Aged About 28 Years, R/o Dedawali (Dhandhela) Post Rajpura, Tehsil Neemkathana, District Sikar (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
The Staff Seclection Commission (N.r.), Block No. 12, Cgo Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110504 Through Its Regional Director.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Mehla For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA
Order
13/04/2018
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy raised in the instant writ application stands resolved in view of the adjudication by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in a batch of writ applications lead case being SBCWP No. 3352/2017 (Dharmendra Kumar Yadav Vs. Union Of India & Anr.), decided on 17th May, 2017, observing thus:
“Accepting the assurance given by Mr. R.D. Rastogi, ld. Additional Solicitor General, the present writ petitions are disposed of by issuing following directions:-
(a) That all petitioners shall appear before Secretary, Staff Selection Commission and they shall submit comprehensive detailed representation giving details of the candidates who being less meritorious have been appointed.
(b) That the petitioners in the representation to be filed shall be at liberty to demolish the arguments raised by the respondents that less meritorious persons because of belonging to border area or of being more in age or for any
(2 of 3)
[CW-6699/2018]
other reasons have been given appointment,
(c) The petitioners shall also be entitled to raise arguments that wrongly candidates from the State of Rajasthan were diverted to other States even they were less meritorious or qua meritorious persons route of diversion to the other state was not followed. Petitioners shall be also at liberty to ventilate any other grievance they have regarding the recruitment process undertaken by Regional Director, Staff Selection Commission, Northern Region. The Secretary, Staff Selection Commission, shall hold a fact finding inquiry into the allegations leveled against the officials who at the relevant time were posted in the Regional Directorate of Staff Selection Commission, Northern Region.
(d) Secretary, Staff Selection Commission, before decision of the representation shall publish a list of all candidates who appeared in the State of Rajasthan for the recruitment to the post of Constable(General Duty) in paramilitary forces in pursuance to impugned advertisement qua all the categories be it General, OBC, SC or ST. In the list so published marks secured by each candidate shall be depicted along with cut off marks, of the category to which candidate belong.
(e) In the list, so published, in pursuance of above directions the reasons shall be assigned as to why a particular candidate has been appointed even though he has secured less marks.
(f) After publication of the list Secretary, Staff Selection Commission shall afford hearing to the petitioners and shall pass a detailed reasoned speaking order within one month after the conclusion of the hearing.
The petitioners shall be at liberty to re-approach this court, in case, they are aggrieved against the order to be passed by the Secretary, Staff Selection Commission.”
Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, prays for disposal of the writ application in terms of the order in the case of Dharmendra Kumar Yadav (supra).
In view of the statement made, the instant writ application stands disposed off in terms of the order in the case of
(3 of 3)
[CW-6699/2018]
Dharmendra Kumar Yadav (supra).
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J.
SS/127
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dharmendra Kumar Yadav Vs. Union Of India & Anr.Followed¶12
SBCWP No. 3352/2017 (Dharmendra Kumar Yadav Vs. Union Of India & Anr.)
Leelaram Saini
The Staff Selection Commission (N.r.)
Veerendr Singh Siradhana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Veerendr Singh Siradhana
Parties & counsel
