Allowed

Narayan Lal Gurjar v. State Panchayati Raj Ors.

Rajasthan HC3 Jan 2018CW/98/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner urged that recruitment is pending per another Coordinate Bench order and the Apex Court. Court allowed the writ application disposing of it in terms of the prior order directing representation and expert scrutiny of disputed answers without settling existing appointments.

What did the court decide?

Writ application allowed and disposed of in terms of the order in Niranjan Lal Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, directing representation and expert scrutiny.

Narayan Lal Gurjar Vs State Panchayati Raj Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 98 / 2018

¶3

Narayan Lal Gurjar Son of Shri Jai Narayan Gurjar Aged About Years, R/o Village Rampura Post Botunda, Tehsil Todaraisingh, District Tonk.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur

¶7

Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur.

¶8

Chief Executive Officer Cum Additional Controller of Examination, Zila Parisha, Tonk.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himanshu Jain For Respondent(s) :

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶12

Order

¶13

03/01/2018

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, submits that the controversy raised in the instant writ application stands resolved in view of the adjudication made by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Niranjan Lal Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 4405 of 2015, decided along with 47 analogous matters vide order dated 3^rd August, 2016, observing thus:

¶15

“This court generally cannot enter into opinion of the experts, however, when counsel for petitioners referred to certain answers to the questions which seem to be apparently wrong, the court directed

¶16

(2 of 4)

¶17

[CW-98/2018]

¶18

learned Additional Advocate General to keep the experts present in the court so that due to hyper technicalities, injustice may not cause to the petitioners. In pursuance to the directions of this court, the experts are present.

¶19

In regard to few questions, even as per opinion of the experts, bonus marks were required to be given as few questions were having more than one correct answer. In few questions, they also felt that even the second answer key does not contain the correct answer.

¶20

At that stage, learned Additional Advocate General made a proposal aforesaid in the interest of justice and to redress the grievance of the petitioners, which has been accepted by learned counsel for the petitioners. In view of the aforesaid, this court is not inclined to express opinion on each disputed question. It is in the light of the suggestion made by learned Additional Advocate General to save the selections and appointments already made and to see that result as well as appointments are not unsettled. It would otherwise save the department and agony of the petitioners and consequences thereupon. In view of the aforesaid and as agreed by the parties, these writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions: (i) Each petitioner would be at liberty to make a representation to the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad concerned indicating the objection about correctness of the answer raised in the present writ petitions. It is by giving details of the petitioner/s as well as number of the writ petition/s. The petitioners would further supply the material to show that answer given by them or their view is correct so that it can be examined appropriately by the experts. The representation would be submitted within a period of 21 days from today.

¶21

(3 of 4)

¶22

[CW-98/2018]

¶23

(ii) On receipt of representations by the respective Zila Parishads, it would be sent to the State Government. The State Government would constitute a committee of experts by inducting the person of appropriate level who must be expert of the subject. It may be at the level of Professor or Associate Professor.

¶24

(iii) After receiving opinion of the experts, the result of the petitioners would be examined. If they become entitled to get bonus marks or marks for correct answer/s given by them then their result would be revised provided they fall in the merit after getting marks and, accordingly, their merit would be assessed by the Zila Parishad after getting expert opinion or, in the alternative, the State Government may call for result from the Zila Parishad for carrying out the directions given above.

¶25

(iv) The directions given above would be applicable only to the petitioners herein and only for those disputed answers which have been raised in the present writ petitions. The petitioners would not be entitled to raise objections about any other question or answer which has not been raised in the present writ petitions. The aforesaid directions have been given by accepting arguments of learned Additional Advocate General. After publication of second answer key, if somebody has not approached this court till date, then directions given above would not apply to him/her. The issue cannot be kept open to unsettle the appointments and the selections made by different Zila Parishads at the instance of those who are sleeping over the matter.

¶26

(v) The State Government is further directed to take appropriate opinion of learned Additional Advocate General Shri S.K. Gupta after getting opinion of the experts and sending it to the Zila Parishad for revising the marks of the petitioners. The direction aforesaid

¶27

(4 of 4)

¶28

[CW-98/2018]

¶29

has been given to avoid further litigation in the matter and to have proper and unbiased scrutiny of the issues. After the exercise, as directed by this court, the compliance report would be produced before the court by respective Zila Parishads/State Government. It is to see as to whether proper compliance of the order has been made or not. It is only to avoid further litigation on the issue so that selections in question are not unsettled further. The report would be submitted at the earliest and, on its receipt, it would be placed before this court.

¶30

A copy of this order be placed in each connected

¶31

file.”

¶32

Counsel for the petitioner further urged that the recruitment process is still in progress in view of the final adjudication by the Apex Court of the land.

¶33

It is further prayed that instant writ application be allowed disposed off in terms of the order in the case of Niranjan Lal Sharma (supra).

¶34

Ordered accordingly.

¶35

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J.

¶36

SS/203

Narayan Lal Gurjar v. State Panchayati Raj Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayan Lal Gurjar v. State Panchayati Raj Ors.

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

Arun Kumar Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Smt Rina Jain Vs State Education Dep Ors.

Rambabu Goyal Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Ajay Kumar Meena@Ajay Meena Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rameshwar Dayal Vs Narbda

Smt Meenakshi Sharma Vs State of Raj and Ors.