Allowed

Prakash Choudhary v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC14 Oct 2019CW/4681/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Bench allowed an early listing application and, following a previous Division Bench order in Ashok Kaviya, allowed the petitioner's writ petition to quash a cut-off list and ensure consideration against a 2013 advertisement, ordering the State to process the candidature within three months.

What did the court decide?

Cut-off list to be quashed; petitioner to be considered for appointment; respondents to process candidature within three months.

Prakash Choudhary Vs State and Ors. — Election Law | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4681/2016

Prakash Choudhary

----Petitioner

Versus

State and ors.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Nupur Bhati For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanuman Choudhary

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶10

Order

¶11

14/10/2019

¶12

The matter comes upon an application (Inward No. 01/2018) seeking early listing of the writ petition.

¶13

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.

¶14

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is finally heard today itself.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has approached this Court praying that the cut-off list for appointment on the post of Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector Competitive Examination, 2013 prepared on 07.04.2016 (Annx.7) may be quashed and the petitioner may be considered for appointment on the post of Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector in pursuance of the advertisement dated 06.08.2013.

¶16

Learned counsel further submits that the controversy involved in the present writ petition has been decided in favour of the petitioner by a detailed order passed by the learned Division

¶17

(2 of 2)

¶18

[CW-4681/2016]

¶19

Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1062/2017 (Ashok Kaviya Vs. State of Rajasthan &

¶20

ors.) decided on 15.12.2017 in the following terms :-

¶21

“12. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge ought not to have directed constitution of a separate committee to re-examine the facts for the reason the respondents did not present any fact which was required to be reconsidered.

¶22

In view of the fact that no fact has been produced on record by the respondents to controvert the factual correctness of the two certificates relied upon by the appellant, we allow the appeal and after setting aside the impugned order dispose of the writ petition filed by the appellant quashing the decision taken to hold that the appellant does not possess the requisite experience qualification. The respondents would now process the candidature of the appellant in accordance with law treating him to be empanelled candidate possessing the requisite experience. Needful shall be done within three months.”

¶23

Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶24

In view of the above, the present writ petition is also allowed in the same terms as order passed by the learned Division Bench in the case of Ashok Kaviya (supra).

¶25

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶26

187-Inder/-

Prakash Choudhary v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Choudhary v. State and 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

O.I.C.Ltd. Vs Shiv Raj and Ors.

Lrs of Nand Kishore Vs K.P. Garg

Vijay Singh and Ors. Vs Farukh and Ors.

Mc,Shri Hanwant Sr.Sec.School Vs Raj.Non-Government Edu,Inst.Tri. and Ors.

Mc,Shri Hanwant Sr.Sec.School Vs Raj.Non-Government Edu,Inst.Tri. and Ors.

Mc,Shri Hanwant Sr.Sec.School Vs Raj.Non-Government Edu,Inst.Tri. and Ors.