Disposed

Amit Sharma S/O Late Shri Purushottam Sharma v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission

Rajasthan HC18 Oct 2019CW/2763/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declared two writ petitions infructuous after the Respondent declared a separate cut-off for the Excise Subordinate Service. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge the declared result if filed. The petitions were then disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Declared writ petitions infructuous and granted liberty to challenge the separately declared result of the Excise Subordinate Service if filed.

Amit Sharma S/O Late Shri Purushottam… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2763/2019

¶3

Amit Sharma S/o Late Shri Purushottam Sharma, Aged About 33 Years, R/o 2072, Khazane Walon Ka Rasta, Chandpole Bazar, Laxminath Ji Ka Mandir, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

¶7

----Respondent Connected With

¶8

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 26171/2018

¶9

Shatendra Kumar S/o Sant Ram, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village Ahiro Ki Dhani, Post Dada Fatehpura, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

¶10

----Petitioner Versus Rajasthan Public Service Commision, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Pratap Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. MF Baig Mr. Shiv Charan Gupta

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶12

Judgment / Order

¶13

18/10/2019

¶14

The petitioner was allowed vide order dated 29.05.2019 to participate in the RAS/RTS Main Examination2018 as a Departmental Candidate for the post of Excise Inspector, which was one of the post included in the RAS and allied Examination-2018. The notice was served as the RPSC

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CW-2763/2019]

¶17

had not declared a separate cut-off for the departmental candidates and the Excise Department as well as the Tax Department. After notices have been served, RPSC filed its reply and they have now declared a separate cut-off and result for the Rajasthan Sale Tax Subordinate Service and that Rajasthan Excise Subordinate Service and other subordinate services on 31.05.2019 and cut-off has also been declared.

¶18

In view thereof, learned counsel for petitioner has pointed out that he has not been able to get the cut-off marks as laid down by the RPSC, however, he wants to challenge the result prayed for Rajasthan Excise Subordinate Service as those who have not even taken permission as departmental candidates were allowed by the RPSC for being declared in the said category.

¶19

I have considered the submissions and find that the petitioner has not raised any such submission in the present writ petition. In view thereof, the writ petition upon declaration of the result separately of Rajasthan Excise Subordinate Service has been rendered as infructuous.

¶20

By an interim order as has noticed above, the petitioner was allowed to appear in the main examination, however, this court finds that he has not obtained the cut-off thus his result cannot be declared. However, this interim order shall be made protective by declaring these writ petitions as having become infructuous and granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the result of the Excise Subordinate Service as declared by the RPSC on the grounds which he wants to take. Any order which may passed by the

¶21

(3 of 3)

¶22

[CW-2763/2019]

¶23

court in the said writ petitions, if so filed, would govern the result of the petitioner.

¶24

With the aforesaid, writ petitions stand disposed of.

¶25

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶26

Sunita Kanwar /84-85

Amit Sharma S/O Late Shri Purushottam Sharma v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Sharma S/O Late Shri Purushottam Sharma v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Mridu Shree Vs State

State of Raj Vs R C S a T/a C Sharma

Smt Asha Bhaktiani Vs State and Ors.

Abhishek Pancholi Vs State Education Department Ors.

Nidhi Yadav, D/O Shri Daleep Singh Yadav, W/O Shri Vineet Kumar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Dr Hemlata Saini Vs State of Raj and Ors.