Disposed

Dhruvpal S/O Shri Kishandan v. the Rajasthan Public Service Commission

Rajasthan HC2 Sept 2021CW/20515/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposes of several connected writ petitions challenging recruitment by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. The court lays itself out on the decision in Jagdish Kumar Choudhary v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and follows those directions without further order regarding costs.

What did the court decide?

Petitions disposed of in light of and with similar directions as given in Jagdish Kumar Choudhary v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission.

Dhruvpal S/O Shri Kishandan Vs the… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17933/2019

¶3

Mahaveer Sharma S/o Ramlal Sharma, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Bhatto Ka Mohalla, Village Post Dhola, Via Gatwadi, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶4

Gyarsi Lal Verma S/o Mangu Ram Verma, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Post Nangal Nathusar, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar (Rajasthan)

¶5

Rajpal S/o Sagar Ram Jat, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Dhani Moduwali, Post Jasana, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan)

¶6

Dhruvapal S/o Kishandan, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Vpo Nethwa, Tehsil Ramgarh Shekhawati, District Sikar (Rajasthan)

¶7

Shishupal Singh Meel S/o Murlidhar Meel, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Vpo Manda Madni , Via Palsana, District Sikar (Rajasthan)

¶8

Omprakash Sharma S/o Prabhati Lal Sharma, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Vpo Vimalpura, Via Kaladera, Tehsil Chomu, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶9

Babulal Ghosliya S/o Goruram Ghosliya, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Vpo Bharni, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar (Rajasthan)

¶10

----Petitioners

¶11

Versus

¶12

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶13

Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner (Rajasthan)

¶14

Rajasthan Public Service Commission Through Secretary, Ghooghara Ghati, Ajmer (Rajasthan)

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

Connected With

¶17

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19383/2019

¶18

Mamta Kumari Atal D/o Narain Lal Raigar, W/o Rakesh Arya, Aged About 38 Years, By Caste Raigar (Sc), R/o 101, Saini Colony-I, Kartarpura, Jaipur.

¶19

----Petitioner

¶20

Versus

¶21

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Secondary Education Department, Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶22

Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

¶23

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Through Its Secretary.

¶24

----Respondents

¶25

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20308/2019

¶26

Gyarsilal Verma S/o Shri Manguram Verma, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Post Nangal, Nathusar Tehsil Sri Madhopur District

(2 of 4)

[CW-17933/2019]

Sikar (Raj.)

----Petitioner

Versus

¶32

The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

¶33

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Education Department Secretariat, Jaipur

¶34

The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner

¶35

----Respondents

¶36

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20419/2019

¶37

Om Prakash Bunkar S/o Rameshwar Bunkar, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Post Hanutpura, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶38

----Petitioner

¶39

Versus

¶40

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan.

¶41

The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan Bikaner.

¶42

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

¶43

----Respondents

¶44

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20515/2019

¶45

Dhruvpal S/o Shri Kishandan, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Post Nathwa, Tehsil Ramgadh Shekhawati District Sikar (Raj.)

¶46

----Petitioner

¶47

Versus

¶48

The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary Ajmer

¶49

The State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶50

The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.

¶51

----Respondents

¶52

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21158/2019

¶53

Sitaram Yadav S/o Bharta Ram Yadav, Aged About 45 Years, By Caste Yadav, R/o Village And Post Ghasipura, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur.

¶54

----Petitioner

¶55

Versus

¶56

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Secondary Education Department, Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶57

Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

¶58

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Though Its Secretary.

¶59

----Respondents

¶60

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21777/2019

¶61

Sajida Kuraishi D/o Abdul Rashid Kuraishi, Aged About 34 Years, R/o D-304-305, Murlipura Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner

(3 of 4)

[CW-17933/2019]

Versus

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶67

The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner. 3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

¶68

----Respondents

¶69

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sara Parveen for Mr. Tanveer Ahamad. Mr. Takhat Singh. Mr. Neeraj Kumar Sharma. Mr. Ram Pratap Saini. For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.F. Baig, DGC.

¶70

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order

¶71

02/09/2021

¶72

Learned counsel for the parties submit that the issue raised in the present writ petitions is squarely covered by judgment of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15944/2019: Jagdish Kumar Choudhary v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Anr. and other connected writ petitions decided on 19.03.2020 and submit that the present petitions may also be disposed of in the light of the said judgment.

¶73

Principal Bench at Jodhpur in the case of Jagdish Kumar Choudhary inter-alia directed as under:-

¶74

"In view of the aforesaid, these writ petitions are allowed; the merit list and the select list (if any) is hereby quashed; the RPSC is directed to recheck all the answer scripts in tendam with the adjudication made qua each of the question under consideration.

¶75

For the sake of convenience, particulars of questions and corresponding answers/directions, which need to be revisited have been cataloged in the Schedule appended with the present judgment. The revision of result shall be subject to the following :-

¶76

(i) The Commission shall immediately

¶77

constitute at least two members Committee(s) of Experts for the questions,

¶78

(4 of 4)

¶79

[CW-17933/2019]

¶80

which have been ordered to be referred to the Expert Committee;

¶81

(ii) Questions belonging to different subjects may be referred to different Committees;

¶82

(iii) The RPSC shall provide not only a copy of the judgment instant but also copies of writ petition(s) to the members of the Expert Committee so as to enable them to take into account the challenge/contentions/arguments and material relied upon by the petitioners;

¶83

(iv) The Experts are expected to go through the observations made by this Court while dealing with the questions referred to it, more particularly what has been said in para No.12 of the judgment instant;

¶84

(v) The Expert Committee to submit its report qua the questions referred latest by 15.04.2020; (vi) Assimilating the answers suggested by the Expert Committee and the adjudication made in the present judgment, the RPSC will recheck the answer scripts of all the candidates by 30.04.2020;

¶85

(vii) The revised result/select list shall be forwarded to the State Government latest by 15.05.2020."

¶86

Learned counsel for the RPSC submits that in para 217 cost has been imposed, which may be made easy. A look at the nature of cost imposed by the Court reveals that the same pertains to the recruitment as a whole and not in each individual case and, therefore, in those circumstances no further order is required to be passed qua the cost so imposed.

¶87

In view of the submissions made the writ petitions are disposed of in light of and with similar directions as given in the case of Jagdish Kumar Choudhary (Supra).

¶88

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶89

184-190-pradeep/-

Dhruvpal S/O Shri Kishandan v. the Rajasthan Public Service Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhruvpal S/O Shri Kishandan v. the 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raghuveer Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Kailash Ram Regar Vs State of Rajasthan

Kapil Dev Sharma S/O Shri Kanhaiya Lal Shrma Vs State of Rajasthan

Sitaram Yadav S/O Bharta Ram Yadav Vs the State of Rajasthan

Gyarsilal Verma S/O Shri Manguram Verma Vs the Rajasthan Public Service Commission

Om Prakash Bunkar S/O Rameshwar Bunkar Vs the State of Rajasthan