Dismissed

Union of India v. Jitendra Kumar Trivedi S/O Sh. Nanagram Trivedi

Rajasthan HC10 May 2023CW/8390/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Tribunal's order allowing an application despite alleged defects in the form. The High Court observed no patent illegality and found the Tribunal's view reasonable, refusing to interfere under Article 227 to dismiss the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; High Court refused to interfere with the Tribunal's order.

Union of India Vs Jitendra Kumar Trivedi S/O Sh… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/010208]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8390/2022

¶4

Union Of India, Through General Manager, Northern Western Railway, Near Jawahar Circle, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶5

Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, Ajmer 2010, Nehru Marg, Ambedkar Circle, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

¶6

Member Secretary, Railway Recruitment Board, 2010, Nehru Marg, Ambedkar Circle, Ajmer Rajasthan.

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

Jitendra Kumar Trivedi S/o Sh. Nanagram Trivedi, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Anand Colony, Behind Govt. P.g. College, Dausa (Raj). Applied For The Post Of Assistant Loco Pilot In Rrb Ajmer.

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Nidhi Khandelwal Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.P. Sharma Advocate.

¶12

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Order

10/05/2023

Heard on admission.

Learned counsel for Union of India would submit that the Tribunal exceeded jurisdiction in allowing the original application even though respondent had not correctly filled up the application form and indication regarding selection of category was also not written strictly, in accordance with the instructions.

¶17

After going through the order passed by the Tribunal and particularly taking into consideration the nature of defect alleged against the respondent, we find that the view taken by the Tribunal does not suffer from any patent illegality or perversity.

¶18

[2023/RJJP/010208]

¶19

[CW-8390/2022]

¶20

Even the petitioners admit that the respondent had indicated the category of his choice, but what is disputed is the manner in which such preference was indicated in the application form. The respondent was permitted to write the written explanation and the objection to his candidature was raised only after he was allowed to write the examination. Therefore, in the conspectus of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the nature of defect alleged by the petitioners, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal in exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶21

The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶22

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ SANJAY KUMAWAT-2

Union of India v. Jitendra Kumar Trivedi S/O Sh. Nanagram Trivedi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Jitendra Kumar Trivedi S/O Sh. Nanagram Trivedi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kedarnath Ghasolia S/O Late Gauri Shankar Ghasolia Vs State of Rajasthan

The State of Rajasthan Vs Durga Prasad Sharma S/O Shri Jiya Lal Sharma

Sapna Bijarniya D/O Shri Mool Chand Vs State of Rajasthan

Madhu W/O Arjun Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Shimla Choudhary W/O Sh. Dinesh Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - III Vs Lalit Kumar Biyani