Disposed

Sumit Mahawar S/O Shri Radheyshyam v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC15 May 2023CW/2313/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition regarding employment selection, the High Court directed the respondents to decide the petitioner's representation concerning his criminal record within two months without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to decide the petitioner's representation within two months from receipt of this order.

Sumit Mahawar S/O Shri Radheyshyam Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/010788]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2313/2019

¶4

Sumit Mahawar S/o Shri Radheyshyam, Aged About 28 Years, Caste- Koli, R/o 727/26, Bhagwan Ganj, New Basti, Ajmer (Rajasthan)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director, Department Of Local Self Government, Government Of Rajasthan, G-3, Rajmahal Residential Area, C-Scheme, Near Civil Line Phatak, Jaipur-16, Rajasthan

¶8

The Ajmer Municipal Corporation through Mayor, Prithvi Raj Marg, Ajmer (Rajasthan)

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gaurav Sharma Saraswat For Respondent(s) :

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶12

Order

¶13

15/05/2023

¶14

Instant petition has been filed by the petition with the

¶15

following prayer:

¶16

“It is therefore, humbly prayed that your Lordship may be pleased to admit & allow this writ petition and may be pleased to issue writ order or direction in the nature thereof:

¶17

(1) To direct the respondents to treat the Petitioner as selected candidate for the post of Seeeper in Ajmer Municipal Corporation, Ajmer in pursuance to the advertisement dated Advertisement no.01/2018 dated 13.04.2018 read with no.2/2018 dated 20.04.2018 and 03/2018 dated 28.04.2018; (2) To direct the Respondents issue fresh Select list including the name of the petitioner and to further give appointment letter to the petitioner.

¶18

(3) The costs of the litigation may also kindly be granted to the petitioner.

[2023/RJJP/010788]

[CW-2313/2019]

(2 of 3)

(4) Any other order, direction or Writ which the Hon’ble High Court deem fit to be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

¶23

Counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.04.2018 the petitioner participated in the process for selection for appointment on the post of ‘Safai Karamchari’ and the petitioner was selected. Counsel submits that after selection of the petitioner in verification it was found that the petitioner was involved in criminal case and faced trial for the offences under Sections 147, 149, 323, 341, 504 and 354 IPC and after trial fine of Rs.250/- for each offence was imposed upon the petitioner by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, No.1, Ajmer vide its judgment dated 08.05.2015. Counsel submits that the petitioner brought these facts into the notice of the respondents by way of filing a detailed representation on 12.01.2019. Counsel submits that without deciding the said representation, a select list has been issued by the respondents in which the name of the petitioner is not mentioned. Counsel submits that the representation filed by the petitioner is still pending and the same has not been decided by the respondents, so appropriate orders be passed directing the respondents to take a decision and pass appropriate order.

¶24

Prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner appears to be genuine.

¶25

Instant petition stands disposed of with direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner within a

(3 of 3)

[2023/RJJP/010788]

[CW-2313/2019]

period of two months from the date receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶30

Stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶31

Before parting with this order it is made clear that no opinion has been expressed by this Court on the merits of this case. The respondents would be at liberty to decide the representation in accordance with law and pass a speaking order.

¶32

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶33

KuD/8

Sumit Mahawar S/O Shri Radheyshyam v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit Mahawar S/O Shri Radheyshyam 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

Balram S/O Late Shri Sultan Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Dr. Arun Kumar Chaturvedi S/O Sh. B.S. Chaturvedi Vs the Management Committee

Dr Anil Kumar Mathur S/O Lt. Shri Ghanshyam Narayan Mathur Vs the Management Committee

Latif Khan Vs R S R T C and Ors.

Smt.Snehlata Saraswat Vs State

Rais Ahmed and Ors. Vs State and Ors.