Disposed

Rajesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC22 Aug 2023CW/18941/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court ordered the State-respondents to consider and decide the petitioners' representation regarding their employment claims within two months, relying on the precedent of Ashok Kumar Baser v. State of Rajasthan. The petitioners were directed to submit required documents within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to submit representation within two weeks; State directed to decide the same by a reasoned order within two months.

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

(1 of 3)

[2023:RJ-JD:26528]

[CW-18941/2022]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶5

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18941/2022

¶6

Rajesh Kumar S/o Shri Krishan Lal, Aged About 42 Years, R/o. 7G 29 Pawanpuri South, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶7

Inderjeet Beniwal S/o Shri Sharwan Kumar, Aged About 52 Years, R/o. A4/2, Patel Nagar, Opp. Shiv Bari Road,near Shiv Mandir, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶8

Mohammed Shakir Abbasi S/o Shri Fateh Mohammed Abbasi, Aged About 42 Years, R/o. 655 Kasaiyon Ki Bari, Khatikan Dhigge Ke Upar, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶9

----Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

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

¶12

The Director, Medical And Health Services, Tilak Marg, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶13

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

¶14

The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deependra Singh Shekhawat For Respondent(s) :

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶18

Order

¶19

22/08/2023

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners while submitting that 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. Hence, identical order is being passed in the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the very outset, submits that the controversy raised in the instant writ application

[2023:RJ-JD:26528]

[CW-18941/2022]

(2 of 3)

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

¶25

“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. SB Civil Writ Petition no3414/2009 this court directed to employ persons who approached court without making any disturbance with the appointments already given. 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."

¶26

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

[2023:RJ-JD:26528]

[CW-18941/2022]

(3 of 3)

pointed out that for the present, the petitioners 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 Ashok Kumar Baser (supra). In view of the limited prayer addressed; the petitioners are 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.

¶31

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 Ashok 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.

¶32

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

¶33

The order has been passed based on the submissions made in the petition, the respondents would be free to examine the veracity of the submissions made in the petition and only in case, the averments made therein are found to be correct, the petitioners would be entitled to the relief.

¶34

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶35

163-Vivek/-

Rajesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar 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

Dr. Manish Goyal Vs State of Rajasthan

Salim Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Arvind Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Bahadur Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Seema Kanwat Vs State of Rajasthan

Shribhan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan