The Court disposed of the writ petition relying on principles from Alpa Rani case, permitting the petitioner to participate in a third round of document verification if the post remains vacant and the selection process is underway, without issuing a fresh notice.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 480/2023
Sunita Purohit D/o Shri Badri Narayan Purohit, Aged About 42 Years, Presently Residing Opposite Indian Bank, Alakhsagar Road, District Bikaner, Rajasthan 334001
----Petitioner
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Milap Chopra For Respondent(s) : Mr. Piyush Bhandari for Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
17/01/2023
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17623/2022 “Alpa Rani Vs. State of Rajasthan” decided on 22.11.2022 in the following terms:-
“It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that though pursuant to the document verification notice dated 11.10.2022 (Annex.8), the petitioner could not appear for document verification, which was scheduled on 14.10.2022. Whereafter, the respondents have conducted second round of document verification, which ended on 18.11.2022, wherein though the petitioner had made an application on 10.11.2022, she was not permitted to participate in the second round.
(2 of 2)
[CW-480/2023]
However, as the recommendations have been made pursuant to the document verification held on 14.10.2022 and second round of document verification, which ended on 18.11.2022 and in case, posts still remain vacant, the respondents would hold third round of document verification, the respondents be directed to permit the petitioner to participate in the document verification, as the petitioner has marks higher than the candidates, who have been selected by the respondents.
Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that having failed to appear pursuant to the notice dated 11.10.2022, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and fact that the petitioner has obtained higher marks, inasmuch as, she was called in first round of document verification, in case, the respondents hold third round of document verification, the petitioner may be permitted to appear for document verification in the third round, in case, the post/s in petitioner’s category are vacant.
With the above directions, the petition stands disposed of. However, it is made clear that the petitioner would not be issued a fresh notice.”
In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Alpa Rani (supra).
It is made clear that if the process of selections is still underway, then only the candidature of the petitioner is required to be considered and not otherwise.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
237-/Vivek/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner with higher marks should be permitted to participate in the third round of document verification despite missing the first round.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Alpa Rani Vs. State of RajasthanApplied¶13
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17623/2022 Alpa Rani Vs. State of Rajasthan
Sunita Purohit
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department
The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bikaner
Vinit Kumar Mathur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
