Allowed

Anil Kumar Jasoriya S/O Shri Narendra Kumar Jasoriya v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC21 Aug 2023CW/7760/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed a writ petition challenging a circular denying promotion due to a 'censure' penalty. Relying on precedents like Manoj Kumar Machra, the court held the petitioner is entitled to consideration and directed declaration of his fitness in the DPC result kept in sealed cover.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; direction given to declare the DPC result kept in sealed cover and release promotion benefits if petitioner found suitable.

Anil Kumar Jasoriya S/O Shri Narendra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7760/2022

¶3

Anil Kumar Jasoriya S/o Shri Narendra Kumar Jasoriya, aged about 53 Years, Resident of 357, D-Block, Kaveri Marg Officers Campus Vistar, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. At Present Posted As Inspector, Office of DCP East, Jaipur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Rajasthan, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

The Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Banwari Lal Sharma
	Mr. Namo Narayan Sharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Rajesh Mehrishi, AAG Mr. Udit Sharma

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶12

Order

¶13

21/08/2023

¶14

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the circular dated 26-7-2006 (Ann.6) whereby it was provided that the person visited with the penalty of `censure’ shall not be entitled to be considered for promotion, and it has been prayed that petitioner may be considered for promotion to the post of Rajasthan Police Service (Junior Scale) against vacancies of 2022-23.

¶15

Heard counsel for parties and perused the material available on record.

¶16

(2 of 4)

¶17

[CW-7760/2022]

¶18

The impugned circular challenged in this petition came to be considered in SBCWP No.16540/2021, Manoj Kumar Machra Vs. State of Rajasthan and others and other connected writ petitions and said writ petitions were decided on 3-11-2022 and relying on judgment of the Division Bench in case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Ashok Singhvi [2013(4) WLN 251 ] observed that the DPC irrespective of the penalty imposed can adjudge the suitability of the incumbent for promotion and that the consideration itself cannot be denied, and holding so the writ petitions were allowed with a direction to consider the case of petitioner for promotion for the year 2021-22. The said judgment was challenged before the Division Bench by filing DBSAW No.662/2022, State of Rajasthan Vs. Manoj Kumar Machra , and the Division Bench vide judgment dated 20-7-2022, while dismissing the special appeal and affirming the order of the writ petition observed thus:-

¶19

“The instant intra court appeal has been preferred by the State for assailing the order dated 7-3-2022 passed by the learned Single Bench accepting SB Civil Writ Petition No.16540/2021 preferred by the respondent.

¶20

The appeal is delayed by 53 days. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation act has been submitted along with the appeal for seeking condonation of delay occasioned in filing of the appeal. A perusal of the application indicates that no substantial grounds whatsoever have been set out therein for explaining the delay, in spite thereof, we have considered the matter on merits.

¶21

The writ petition of the respondent writ petitioner was accepted on the ratio of the Division Bench judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Ashok Singhvi

¶22

(3 of 4)

¶23

[CW-7760/2022]

¶24

[2013(4) WLN 251 ] and the respondents were directed to consider the case of the respondent writ petitioner for promotion for the year 2021-22.

¶25

Learned AAG Mr. Vyas submits that as the respondent had been visited with the penalty of `censure’, he was not entitled to be considered for promotion.

¶26

We feel that the said argument of Mr. Vyas is untenable in view of the ratio of the Division Bench judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Ashok Singhvi (supra), on which, reliance was placed by learned single Bench while accepting the writ petition vide the order dated 7-3-2022 which ex facie does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever.

¶27

As a consequence, we find no force in this appeal, which is dismissed as being time barred and so also on merits.”

¶28

In view of aforesaid and for reasons discussed in the

¶29

case of Manoj Kumar Machra (supra ), this court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for consideration for promotion against vacancies of 2022-23.

¶30

On the matter coming up before this court on 24-52022, this court while issuing notice to respondents had also directed respondents to provisionally consider the case of petitioner for promotion in the ensuing DPC.

¶31

Counsel for petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was considered in DPC convened on 25-11-2022 and he has been found fit for promotion against vacancy of 1-8-2022. Though there was no order for keeping the result of DPC in sealed cover, but it has been kept in sealed cover.

¶32

Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent has not disputed the submission of counsel for petitioner.

¶33

(4 of 4)

¶34

[CW-7760/2022]

¶35

Accordingly, the result of DPC kept in sealed cover be declared and if the petitioner has been found suitable due benefits of promotion be released to him.

¶36

The writ petition stands allowed, accordingly.

¶37

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

¶38

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶39

Arn/132

Anil Kumar Jasoriya S/O Shri Narendra Kumar Jasoriya v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Jasoriya S/O Shri Narendra Kumar Jasoriya 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj S/O Rai Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sandeep Agarwal S/O Shri K.M Agarwal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Dr. Rameshwar Prasad Mishra S/O Shri Ramvilas Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Vinita Kumari Dotania, Daughter of Shri Dilip Kumar Dotania and Wife of Dr. Inderjeet Sanwal Vs State of Rajasthan

Anoop Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Its Secretary, Medical and Health Department

Prithavi Raj Gocher S/O Kunj Behari Vs the State of Rajasthan