Allowed

Amar Singh Meena S/O Sampat Lal Meena v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC16 May 2023CW/2281/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, selected for a safai karamchari post in 2018, faced appointment delays due to date-of-birth verification. The court held the Respondents failed to justify the five-year delay or show a pending inquiry. It directed appointment with benefits excluding monetary claims within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to appoint the petitioner as Safai karamchari with consequential benefits excluding monetary benefits within three months.

Amar Singh Meena S/O Sampat Lal Meena Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/011051]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2281/2021

¶4

Amar Singh Meena S/o Sampat Lal Meena, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village And Post Aluda, Tehsil Nadauti, District Karauli.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Local Self, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

Director, Local Bodies, G-3, Rajmahal Palace Residential Area, Civil Phatak, 22 Godown, Jaipur.

¶9

Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Rawatbhata District Chittorgarh.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.D. Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jahangir Alam

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶13

Order

¶14

16/05/2023

¶15

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

¶16

“It is, therefore humbly prayed that Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and

¶17

(i) By appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may kindly be directed to give joining to the petitioner on the post of Safai karamchari pursuant to appointment order dated 14.07.2018 from the date of appointment given to other selected candidate in the said selection with all consequential benefit.

[2023/RJJP/011051]

[CW-2281/2021]

(2 of 4)

ii) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be given in favour of the petitioner.”

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inspite of selection of the petitioner on the post of ‘Safai Karamchari’ in the year 2018 till date appointment has not been given to him. Counsel submits that at the time of participating in the process for selection, the petitioner submitted his Class 10^th certificate indicating his date of birth as 02.06.1986. Counsel submits that respondents have doubted the experience certificate and date of birth of the petitioner, hence a verification was done from the Madhya Pradesh Sanskrit Board, Bhopal. Counsel submits that after verification, it was found that the date of birth of the petitioner is 02.06.1986 and the entries mentioned in the Board certificate were correct. Counsel submits that after verification about the date of birth of the petitioner, the respondents again passed an order on 18.12.2018 indicating the above facts and decided to offer appointment to the petitioner. Counsel submits that inspite of passing of more than five years till date the petitioner has not been allowed to join the service pursuant to the order dated 18.12.2018. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, appropriate orders be passed in favour of the petitioner directing the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of ‘Safai Karamchari’ with all consequential benefits.

¶23

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that entire confusion was created by the petitioner by

[2023/RJJP/011051]

[CW-2281/2021]

(3 of 4)

submitting two different mark-sheets with two different date of birth. Counsel submits that in the mark sheet of Class 8^th the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 26.06.1983 while in the mark sheet of Class 10^th the date of birth of the petitioner was 02.06.1986. Counsel submits that this fact was verified from the Madhya Pradesh Sanskrit Board, Bhopal. Counsel submits that subsequently the experience certificate submitted by the petitioner was found to be fake and inquiry is pending in this regard, hence no order can be passed for appointment of the petitioner.

¶28

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. This fact is not in dispute that petitioner was selected for appointment on the post of Safai Karmchari by the respondents vide order dated 14.07.2018 but subsequently his appointment was withheld by the respondents because of slight confusion about the correct date of birth of the petitioner. Subsequently, after verification from the Madhya Pradesh Sanskrit Board, Bhopal, it was found that correct date of birth of the petitioner was 02.06.1986 and the entries mentioned in his Class 10^th Certificate were found to be correct and accordingly, order was passed on 18.12.2018 for appointment of the petitioner.

¶29

It is quite surprising that inspite of passing of more than five years till date the respondents have not allowed the petitioner to join the post upon which he was selected in the year 2018. Perusal of the record indicates that no inquiry whatsoever is pending against the petitioner with regard to his experience certificate and no material has been produced by the respondents in this regard.

(4 of 4)

[2023/RJJP/011051]

[CW-2281/2021]

In view of the submissions made hereinabove, instant petition stands disposed of with directions to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Safai karamchari with all consequential benefits except monetary benefits within a period three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶34

Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶35

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶36

Ashu/79

Amar Singh Meena S/O Sampat Lal Meena v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amar Singh Meena S/O Sampat Lal Meena v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Snehlata Saraswat Vs State

Sumit Mahawar S/O Shri Radheyshyam Vs the State of Rajasthan

Rais Ahmed and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Deoki Nandan Vs Judge Labour Court and Ors.

State Vs Pragyag Bhadani

Rect.Harpal Singh Vs U O I and Ors.