Dismissed

Ajay Choudhary v. Union of India

Rajasthan HC20 Oct 2021CW/12830/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought vacation of interim order staying cancellation of his enrollment due to a spelling discrepancy in his father's name. The High Court rejected the application to vacate the interim stay but clarified no bar exists if respondents wish to allow regularization.

What did the court decide?

Application under Article 226(3) to vacate the interim stay order is rejected. No bar if respondents allow petitioner to join as regular recruit.

Ajay Choudhary Vs Union of India — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12830/2020

¶3

Ajay Choudhary S/o Shri Asu Ram/ Asha Ram, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Village Khariya, Po Chirdhani, Tehsil Pipar City, Jodhpur District Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Secretariat, New Delhi.

¶7

The Lieutenant Colonel, Enrolling Officer, Jak Li Regimental Centre, Pin 911096, C/o 56 Apo.

¶8

The Secretary, Board Of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.S. Bhaleria For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit ASG

¶11

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶12

Order

¶13

20/10/2021

¶14

In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned.

¶15

The matter comes up on an application (No.01/21) seeking vacation of the interim order dated 02.12.2020.

¶16

This Hon’ble Court had passed the following interim order on 02.12.2020:

¶17

“1. Relying upon a recent judgment dated 09.01.2020, rendered in case of Balkrishna Ram Vs. Union of India & Anr. [Civil Appeal No.131/2020), Mr. Bhaleria, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

[CW-12830/2020]

¶20

that jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is not absolutely barred in the matters relating to armed forces.

¶21

2. While asserting that name of petitioner’s father is “Asharam”, learned counsel submits that due to inadvertence, name of his father in the mark-sheets of Secondary and Senior Secondary, has been shown as “Ashu Ram”, learned counsel submits that the petitioner has already applied for requisite correction in the mark- sheets of Secondary and Senior Secondary Classes and has also got notification published in the official gazette in this regard.

¶22

3. He submits that requisite correction is likely to take some time, but for the dismay of the petitioner, the respondents have cancelled his enrollment by way of impugned order dated 10.11.2020, for which he is constrained to invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court.

¶23

4. The matter requires consideration. 5. Issue notice. Issue notice of stay application also, returnable within eight weeks.

¶24

6. Meanwhile, effect and operation of the impugned order dated 10.11.2020, shall remain stayed and the petitioner shall be permitted to continue with the training.

¶25

7. Petitioner shall, however, be not allowed to join as a regular recruit, without the leave of the Court.”

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards the circular issued by the respondents on 12.12.2011, which is Annexure-R/3 of the writ petition, in which the spelling variations are reflected to be accepted as long as the name of the person remains the same.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the present case, only the name of the petitioner’s father was

¶28

(3 of 3)

¶29

[CW-12830/2020]

¶30

reflected as Ashu Ram, whereas in the documents, it was Asha Ram. Learned counsel also submits that the necessary gazette notification has been issued for correction, and the so called surrender of the post was done, after the aforementioned interim order was passed.

¶31

Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, learned ASG vehemently submits that it is a question of minimum discipline of a newly recruited person that he should have made the necessary correction for the record in time.

¶32

This Court, in the given circumstances, is satisfied that at this stage, no case for vacating the interim order already passed is made out, as the gazette notification for change in the name of petitioner’s father has been passed and the circular (Ann.R/3) itself does not create any bar for change in the name of the petitioner’s father.

¶33

Consequently, the application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India is rejected. However, it is made clear that there shall not be any bar, if the respondents wishes to allow the petitioner to join as a regular recruit.

¶34

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

¶35

169-skant/-

Ajay Choudhary v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Choudhary v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank Vs Kishan Singh Khiriya

Indra Kumar Soni Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramniri W/O Ramsingh Vs State of Rajasthan

Mangi Bai Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Balu Kumari Vs State of Rajasthan

Devi Bai Vs the State of Rajasthan