Disposed

Chhel Narayan v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC1 Feb 2021CW/1781/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan, Jodhpur, disposed of a writ petition seeking employment. The court relied on a coordinate bench's order in Ashol Kumar Baser and directed the State to consider and decide the petitioner's representation regarding employment eligibility within two months, rather than granting immediate appointment.

What did the court decide?

None granted; petitioner to submit representation; State to decide within two months.

Chhel Narayan Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1781/2021

¶3

Chhel Narayan S/o Shri Ramu Ram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o V And P Garasani, Via Asop, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶7

Director, Medical And Health Services, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶8

Additional Director (Admn.), Medical And Health Services, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶9

Chief Medical And Health Officer, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pawan Singh. For Respondent(s) :

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order

¶13

01/02/2021

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner while submitting that in identical writ petition being SB Civil Writ Petition No.10538/2016 : Kaptan Singh & Ors Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. has been disposed of by Jaipur Bench of this Court, vide order dated 09.11.2017, prays that similar order be passed in the present case also.

¶15

Hence, disposing of the writ petition, identical order is being passed in the present writ petition:-

¶16

“Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, submits that the controversy raised in the instant

¶17

writ application stands resolved in view of the

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

[CW-1781/2021]

¶20

adjudication made by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ashol Kumar Baser v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ petition Number 6707/2007, decided on 8th February, 2012, observing thus:

¶21

"After hearing of the matter at a considerable length, it is submitted by learned Additional Advocate General Shri R L Jangid that adequate number of Vacancies are available with the respondents to employee meritorious candidates, as a consequent of process of selection initiated under the Advertisement Annx-1. It is also pointed out that in a matter of similar nature i.e. SBCivil Writ Petition no3414/2009 this court directed to employ persons who approached court without making any disturbance with the appointments already given.

¶22

Having considered all the facts and circumstances of the case I deem it appropriate to accept the petition for writ with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for the post for which they applied under the advertisement Anx-1, if they are otherwise eligible and meritorious. The appointment to the petitioners may be given from the date appointments were to other persons as as a consequent to the process of selection in question. The seniority and all other benefits including fixation of pay on notional basis in the event of grant of appointment shall be reckoned from the date appointments were given to other persons selected through same process. However they shall not be entitled for actual payment of wages for the period concerned. Necessary orders for compliance of the directions given are required to be passed by the respondents on or before 31.3.2012."

¶23

Learned counsel further asserted that despite repeated representations addressed by the petitioners, the respondents have not responded to the claim of the petitioner.

¶24

(3 of 3) [CW-1781/2021]

¶25

It is further pointed out that for the present, the petitioner would be satisfied, if the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide their representation within a time frame, in the backdrop of the adjudication in the case of Ashol Kumar Baser (supra).

¶26

In view of the limited prayer addressed; the petitioner is directed to address a representation enclosing copies of the opinions, which they intend to refer to and rely upon so also a copy of the notice for demand of justice addressed to the counsel within two weeks hereinafter.

¶27

In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid period, the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order in the backdrop of the opinion in the case of Ashol Kumar Baser (supra). This exercise shall be undertaken by the State-respondents as expeditiously as possible; preferably within two months from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order.

¶28

With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ application stands disposed of.

¶29

The stay application also stands disposed of.”

¶30

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶31

108-Sumit/-

Chhel Narayan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhel Narayan v. State of Rajasthan

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

Jeevan Ram Vs Lrs of Joraram

Babu Mohammad Mansuri Vs the Assistant Engineer, PWD

Vartika Dube Vs Somesh Sharma

Bhanwar Lal Paliwal Vs State of Rajasthan

Aarti Khandelwal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Surya Prakash Vs State of Rajasthan