Dismissed

Meenakshi v. State of Rajasthan through Its Secretary

Rajasthan HC26 Oct 2018CW/9749/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition concerning Safai Karamchari recruitment issues by following directions in R. Jajot & Ors., directing petitioners to approach a newly constituted redressal committee with grievances within the stipulated period.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; petitioners directed to submit representation to the constituted redressal committee.

Meenakshi Vs State of Rajasthan through Its Secretary — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ No. 9749/2018

¶3

Meenakshi D/o Shri Om Prakash, W/o Laxman Bhati, Aged About 35 Years, Near Hanuman Mandir, Harjan Basti, Rai Ka Baag, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶4

Radha D/o Shri Dau Lal, W/o Pappu Ram,, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Near Hanuman Mandir, Harijan Basti, Raikabaag, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶5

Kusum D/o Shri Pappu Ram,, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Near Hanuman Mandir, Harijan Basti, Raikabaag, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶6

Aruna D/o Shri Shankar Lal, W/o Rakesh Barasa,, Aged About 45 Years, Opposite Dadhich Kirana Store, Kabir Nagar, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶7

Ashish S/o Shri Rakesh Barasa,, Aged About 26 Years, Opposite Dadhich Kirana Store, Kabir Nagar, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶8

Laxman S/o Shri Dharu Ram,, Aged About 41 Years, Near Hanuman Mandir, Harijan Basti, Raikabaag, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶9

Sunny Hans S/o Shri Ashok Hans,, Aged About 30 Years, 1098, Prithvipura Harijan Basti, Rasala Road, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶10

Manish Changara S/o Shri Tarachand, Aged About 38 Years, Chitra Cinema, Naya Bass, Naiyo Ki Gufa Ke Uper, Surya Colony, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶11

Pinki D/o Kalidas Hans, W/o. Ashok,, Aged About 45 Years, 308, Raja Motors Ke Pass, Harijan Basti, Dr. Ambedkar Colony, Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur.

¶12

Sunil S/o Ashok Kandar,, Aged About 24 Years, Plot No. 308, Raja Moters Ke Pass, Harijan Basti, Dr. Ambedkar Colony, Pratap Nagar Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶13

Kishan Lal S/o Sona Ram,, Aged About 35 Years, Harijan Basti, Raika Bag, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶14

Manoj Java S/o Shri Sona Ram,, Aged About 35 Years, Harijan Basti, Raika Bag, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Petitioners

Versus

(2 of 3)

[CW-9749/2018]

State Of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Local Self Government Department, G-3, Rajmahal Residential Area, C-Scheme Near Civil Line Phatak, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶20

Director And Joint Local Self Government Department, G- 3, Rajmahal Residential Area, C- Scheme Near Civil Line Phatak, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶21

Collector, District Jodhpur.

¶22

Commissioner Jodhpur Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶23

Chief Executive Officer, Jodhpur Municipal Corporation Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶24

----Respondents

¶25

For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Nikhil Dungawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Parvez for Mr. Rajesh Panwar, AAG

¶26

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶27

Order

¶28

26/10/2018

¶29

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners raising issues pertaining to the recruitment for the post of Safai Karamchari.

¶30

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the issues raised in the present writ petition are squarely covered by the judgment in Ravi Jajot & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : SBCWP No.10496/2018, decided on 30.08.2018, wherein even for the issues, which are not covered by the judgment, it was directed that the petitioners therein would represent before the respondents and a further direction has been given for consideration by a proper redressal committee.

¶31

It is further submitted that pursuant to the said direction, a redressal committee has been constituted by order dated

¶32

(3 of 3)

¶33

[CW-9749/2018]

¶34

27.09.2018 by the respondents and therefore, in light of the said judgment and constitution of the committee, the petitioners may also approach the said committee with the grievances as raised in the present writ petition.

¶35

In the case of Ravi Jajot (supra), it was directed as under :-

¶36

“97. 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.”

¶37

In view of the above direction and the fact that a committee has been constituted, the writ petition filed by the petitioners stands disposed of with similar directions as given in the case of Ravi Jajot (supra). The petitioners would be free to submit a copy of the judgment alongwith the representation.

¶38

A.K. Chouhan/-109

Meenakshi v. State of Rajasthan through Its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meenakshi v. State of Rajasthan through Its Secretary

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

Vijay Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Magraj Jain Vs Dinesh Kumar and Ors.

Bapulal Masar Vs State of Rajasthan