Allowed

Sarvesh Pareek v. State of Raj andORS

Rajasthan HC14 Mar 2018CW/9043/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed the petitioner's writ petition holding that denying age relaxation in sports quota similar to other categories violates equality of opportunity. Petitioner had 91 marks out of 100, qualifying him for appointment. Court directed State to accord appointment within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to proceed with appointment; State directed to accord appointment within two weeks if suitable.

Sarvesh Pareek Vs State of Raj andORS — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶2

BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writs No. 9043/2017

¶4

Sarvesh Pareek S/o. Shri Hukum Chand Pareek, By Caste Brahmin, Resident Of 4, Shyam Vihar, Behind Choradiya Petrol Pump, Sanganer, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary Department Of Home And Personnel Affairs, Govt. Secretariat Bhagwandas Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur.

¶8

The Inspector General Of Police (Hq), Room No.2, Police Head Quarters, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶9

Ajay Singh Shekhawat S/o Shri Ram Singh Shekhawat, R/o Ward No. 130, Mahaveer Nagar, 80 Feet Road, Behind Petrol Pump, Sanganer, Jaipur.

¶10

Ravi Shankar S/o Shri Prabhu Dayal Sharma, R/o 9, Surya Nagar, Rano Ka Kuan, Taron Ki Koot, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

¶11

Aman S/o Shriram Kadwa, R/o Ward No. 7, Vpo Leelawali, Tehsil Sangaria, District Hanumangarh.

¶12

		----Respondents
For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Suresh Pareek, Sr. Counsel with Mr. N. C. Sharma
For Respondent(s)	:	Dr. A. S. Khangarot, Addl. G. C.

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶14

Order

¶15

14/03/2018

¶16

Learned counsel for the parties are not in dispute on the proposition that identical controversy was raised, considered and adjudicated upon by this Court in the case of Mahendra Ganesh Rajput VS. State of Raj. & Anr., decided along with connected matter SBCWP No. 11695/2017, on 9^th February, 2018, wherein,

¶17

(2 of 4)

¶18

[CW-9043/2017]

¶19

the petitioners who participated in the same recruitment process, were deprived of relaxation of three years in age while same relaxation was made available to other categories.

¶20

Dr. A. S. Khangarot, Addl. G. C., counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents further submits that the adjudication in the case of Mahendra Ganesh Rajput and connected matter (supra), has been complied with and process of appointment to the petitioners therein, is in progress.

¶21

The factual matrix in the case at hand is not different from the one that was dealt with by this Court in the case of Mahendra Ganesh Rajput (supra). The petitioner participated in the recruitment process involved herein for consideration of his candidature for appointment to the post of “Sub Inspector and Plantoon Commander” in sports quota, in response to advertisement dated 12^th May, 2017.

¶22

The State Government vide circular dated 23^rd September, 2009, allowed relaxation of three years in outer age limit to the candidates who would have been entitled in respect of his/her age for recruitment in any year in which no such recruitment was held. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that the petitioner was only over aged by one year six months whereas three years age relaxation was admissible to such candidates and that was accorded to candidates of other categories but the petitioner has been declined relaxation on the pretext for he applied under sports quota.

¶23

This Court in the case of Mahendra Ganesh Rajput (supra) while examining such a controversy held that the petitioners therein, who applied under sports quota, were also entitled for age relaxation by three years, and therefore, there could be no

¶24

(3 of 4) [CW-9043/2017]

¶25

discrimination only on the ground that the petitioners applied for consideration of their candidature under the sports quota in the same recruitment process.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶27

The factual matrix that has surfaced has been taken note of which reflects that in the same recruitment process while the State-respondents allowed three years age relaxation to the candidates of other categories but declined the same benefit to the candidates who applied under the sports quota, for consideration of their candidature; is not a valid classification for it millitates against the equity clause under Section 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶28

At the motion stage, on 27^th July, 2017, the petitioner was allowed to participate in the recruitment process provisionally; however, his result was to be kept in sealed cover and was not be declared save with prior permission of this Court.

¶29

Dr. A. S. Khangarot, Addl. G. C. for the State-respondents has produced the result of the petitioner in a sealed cover. On a perusal of the result of the petitioner, it is reflected that he scored in all 91 marks out of 100, against the minimum required of 40 out of 100.

¶30

In view of the above, the petitioner has qualified and is entitled for consideration of his candidature and appointment to the post he applied for in the recruitment process involved herein.

¶31

No other point was raised or argued for consideration of this Court.

¶32

For the reasons and discussions aforesaid, the writ application of the petitioner succeeds and is hereby allowed.

¶33

(4 of 4)

¶34

[CW-9043/2017]

¶35

The State-respondents are directed to proceed further with the recruitment process and accord appointment to the petitioner, if, he otherwise found suitable, strictly in accordance with his merit.

¶36

Compliance of this order be ensured by the Staterespondents as expeditiously as possible; preferably, within two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is presented.

¶37

No Costs.

¶38

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J

¶39

Pooja/114

Sarvesh Pareek v. State of Raj andORS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarvesh Pareek v. State of Raj andORS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Buddh Singh and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Yogesh Vs Laxman Yadav and Ors.

Salim Khan Vs the Raj Financial Corp and Ors.

Bharatlal Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Smt Ritu and Anr. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Subhash Chand Meena and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.