Disposed

Maksud Khan v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC19 Sept 2023CW/5034/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners were granted liberty to file a detailed representation to the respondents regarding their eligibility for LDC posts, relying on a prior judgment in Lalita case. The present writ petition was disposed of without deciding merits, permitting the respondents to consider the case on its own merit.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file detailed representation; case disposed without merits decided.

Maksud Khan Vs State of Rajasthan — Public Procurement and Tenders | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:30456]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5034/2023

¶4

Maksud Khan S/o Ibrahim Khan, Aged About 38 Years, R/o.Kayamkhani Nagar, Degana, District Nagour (Raj.).

¶5

Rajendra Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Ramkishor Sharma, Aged About 36 Years, R/o.Village Dangarwada, Post Shri Chanpura, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj.).

¶6

Giriraj Prasad Gupta S/o Shri Harinaryan Gupta, Aged About 40 Years, R/o.Sunder Das Mar, Manganj, Dausa, District Dausa (Raj.).

¶7

Vaibhav Chaturvedi S/o Shri Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Aged About 34 Years, R/o.Sanghpura, Purani Tonk, District Tonk (Raj.).

¶8

Rajkumar Sharma S/o Shri Krishanawatar Sharma, Aged About 37 Years, R/o.Intaka, Post Chhokerwada, Tehsil Sikrai, District Dausa (Raj.).

¶9

Premlata Laxkar D/o Chhitarmal W/o Vinod Kumar Laxkar, Aged About 41 Years, R/o.Vpo-Sewa, Tehsil Dudu, District Jaipur (Raj.), Presently Resident Of 40, Royal Residency, Sarangpura, Bad Ke Balaji, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶10

----Petitioners

¶11

Versus

¶12

State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶13

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagour.

¶14

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Alwar (Raj.).

¶15

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶16

The Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Degana, District Nagaur (Raj.).

¶17

----Respondents

¶18

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Radheshyam Mankad For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG with Mr. Kunal Upadhyay

¶19

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

[2023:RJ-JD:30456]

[CW-5034/2023]

(2 of 3)

19/09/2023

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioners, instead of pressing the present writ petition on merits, submits that the petitioners may be permitted to approach the respondents by way of filing a detailed representation in light of the order passed by this Court in case of Lalita Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition NO.12857/2021) decided on 21.03.2022 wherein it

¶27

has been held as under:-

¶28

“I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶29

The qualification as indicated in the advertisement Annex.2, which is subject matter of the present petition pertains to the qualification pertaining to the computer knowledge.

¶30

Based on the indication made in the advertisement, initially the candidature of the petitioner was rejected, however, the respondents by circular dated 11.07.2018 (Annex.5) held that those candidates having Computer Science / Computer Application as additional subject in Senior Secondary would also be eligible. Subsequently, another circular dated 26.09.2018 came to be issued based on order passed in the case of Roopa Ram Meghwal & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10050/2018, decided on 25.07.2018 holding that qualification of Computer Application obtained in Graduation / B.Ed. would be valid qualification.

¶31

Based on which, the petitioner was accorded appointment, holding him eligible pursuant to the requirement of the advertisement of the year 2013.

¶32

The determination made by the Authority by rejecting the representation of the petitioner by holding that as in the year 2013, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected and the same subsequently on account of order of the Court and departmental circulars, she was accorded appointment, on that count, she was not eligible, cannot be sustained, inasmuch as, by the circulars, respondents have simply made those holding the qualification, as eligible.

¶33

It is not a case, where a fresh eligibility has been indicated for the purpose of candidates like petitioner to become qualified. Admittedly, the petitioner was holding the qualification prior to the year 2013, as the

(3 of 3)

[2023:RJ-JD:30456]

[CW-5034/2023]

document filed by the petitioner indicates the qualification having been obtained in the year 2011 as such, the denial of notional benefits to the petitioner on the said count cannot be sustained.

¶38

Besides the above, once the other Zila Parishad has accorded the notional benefits to similarly situated candidates, as is reflected from the documents filed by the petitioner as Annex.13, there is no valid reason for the respondents to deny the same to the petitioner.

¶39

Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order dated 12.07.2021 (Annex.12) is quashed and set aside.

¶40

The respondents are directed to accord notional benefits to the petitioner on the post of LDC, as has been accorded to similarly situated candidates vide Annex.13.

¶41

Needful may be done by the respondents within a period of six weeks from the date of this order”.

¶42

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that a liberty may be granted to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners and decide the same on its own merit.

¶43

Considering the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the respondents by way of filing a detailed representation in light of the order passed by this Court in Lalita (supra). In the event of filing such representation, the respondents shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law.

¶44

It is made clear that the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioners on its own merit and if the same is similar to the case of Lalita (supra), the same benefit may also be extended to the petitioners.

¶45

The stay application and other pending applications, if any also stand disposed of.

¶46

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶47

26-SanjayS/-

Maksud Khan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maksud Khan 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

Goga Devi Vs State of Rajasthan

Aaved Hassan Vs the State of Rajasthan

Kana Ram Garg Vs State of Rajasthan

Ghamee Bishnoi Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Amandeep Brar Vs State of Rajasthan

Ujjawal Joshi Vs the State of Rajasthan