Dismissed

Amit Kumar Sharma v. Registrar General R H C Andanr

Rajasthan HC18 Sept 2023CW/12545/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Jaipur Bench dismissed a writ petition seeking a 15% marital benefit margin under the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986, relying on a co-ordinate bench judgment that resolved the same issue. The petition was dismissed against the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Petition and pending applications regarding the grant of 15% marital margin and quashing of selection result were dismissed.

Amit Kumar Sharma Vs Registrar General R H… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:23709]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12545/2018

¶4

Amit Kumar Sharma S/o Manoj Kumar Sharma, aged about 23 years, R/o 311, Prem Nagar, Jagatpura, Jaipur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.

¶8

Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raghunandan Sharma For Respondent(s) :

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶12

Order

¶13

18/09/2023

¶14

Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:-

¶15

“It is therefore, prayed may kindly call for the record concerning the case and after perusing the same. Please accept the writ petition and by way of writ, order and direction:--

¶16

(i) Quashed and set aside the result dated 28.08.2017 and 17.09.2017 issued by the respondent No.2 in pursuance of the advertisement dated 18.02.2017.

¶17

(ii) Further directed to the respondents to reconsider the candidature of the petitioner in pursuance of Rule 10 of the Rule 1986.

¶18

(iii) Further directed to the respondents to grant the benefits of margin of 15% as per Rule 10 of the Rule 1986.

[2023:RJ-JP:23709]

[CW-12545/2018]

(2 of 2)

(iv) Further directed to the respondents if petitioner found in merit than he may be selected and may be given appointment with all consequential benefits.

¶23

(v) Any other relief which Hon’ble Court deemed fit and proper by considering facts and circumstances of the case granted in favour of the petitioner.”

¶24

By way of filing this petition, the petitioner is seeking directions against the respondents to grant him benefits of margin of 15% marks pursuant to the Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1986’).

¶25

At the outset, it has been observed by this Court that the controversy involved in this petition has already been set at rest by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a batch of writ petitions with the lead case of Hemant Kumar Gupta and Ors. Vs. High Cour of Judicature and Anr. (SBCWP No. 17348/2017) and the issue involved in this petition has already been decided against the petitioner. Hence this Court finds no reason to take a different view.

¶26

Instant petition also stands dismissed in the light of the observations made by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case

¶27

of Hemant Kumar Gupta (Supra).

¶28

All application(s) (pending if any) also stands dismissed.

¶29

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶30

Ashu/53

Amit Kumar Sharma v. Registrar General R H C Andanr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar Sharma v. Registrar General R H C Andanr

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

Banke Lal Vs Nani and Ors.

Veenesh Kumari Sharma Wife of Shri Umesh Chand Sharma, Daughter of Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Virendra Kumar Langri S/O Shiv Pal Langri Vs the State of Rajasthan through Deputy Secretary

Kailash Chandra Damor Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Prof Dr Maya Rani Tak Vs State Education Departmentors

Har Narayan Mali Vs Raj Technical University and Ors.