Dismissed

Pawan Kumar Nagar S/O Shri Ram Niwas Nagar v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC25 May 2023CW/96/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a petitioner's request for re-appointment as Lower Division Clerk. The court held that the petitioner had forfeited the original appointment by failing to join by the deadline, and thus could not participate again in the re-initiated recruitment process despite acquiring new qualifications.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was denied any direction to grant appointment or reconsider candidature.

Pawan Kumar Nagar S/O Shri Ram Niwas Nagar… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 96/2023

¶3

Pawan Kumar Nagar S/o Shri Ram Niwas Nagar, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Jajawar, Tehsil Nainwan, District Bundi (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Tonk (Raj.)

¶8

Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Devali, District Tonk (Raj.)

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahipal Singh Kharra For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sheetal Mirdha, AAG, Mr. Prateek Singh

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶12

Order

¶13

25/05/2023

¶14

Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking directions against respondents to grant appointment to petitioner on the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) pursuant to advertisement dated 15.02.2013.

¶15

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

¶16

It is not in dispute that the petitioner participated in the LDC Direct recruitment-2013 in OBC Male Category in Zila Parishad, Tonk. Petitioner scored 73.615 marks more than last cut off marks in General Male Category, therefore, petitioner was selected in

[2023/RJJP/011996]

[CW-96/2023]

(2 of 3)

General Male Category and vide order dated 26.06.2013, appointment to petitioner was offered to join in Gram Panchyat Badoli, Panchayat Samiti Devli, District Tonk. As per order dated 26.06.2013, the petitioner was required to join in the Office of Gram Panchayat Badoli in Panchayat Samiti Devli, District Tonk by 25.07.2013, however the date of joining was changed by respondents vide Office order dated 27.06.2013 (Ann.R/2) upto 05.07.2013 and this order has been said to be communicated to the petitioner. Undisputedly, the petitioner did not join upto 05.07.2013.

¶21

Respondents, in reply, have contended that vide order dated 26.06.2013, in Panchayat Samiti Devli, Tonk, offer of appointment was given to 80 candidates out of which only 39 candidates joined on the post and 41 candidates including petitioner did not join by the designated date, therefore, such information was forwarded to the C.E.O. Zila Parishad, Tonk vide order letter dated 25.09.2013 and the original files of such 41 candidates were too sent back on 26.06.2014 (Ann.R/3 & R/4).

¶22

It may be noted that in view of Clause No.14, indicated in order dated 26.06.2013, the offer of appointment to petitioner stood cancelled. Petitioner has not challenged cancellation of his appointment order dated 26.06.2013, hence same has attained finality and thus, earlier appointment offer dated 26.06.2013 issued to petitioner has come to an end.

¶23

It appears that later on, the process of recruitment for LDC came to be stalled due to pending litigation before the Hon’ble Apex Court till 2017 and the process has been re-initiated in the year 2019. Respondents by issuing order dated 05.03.2019

[2023/RJJP/011996]

[CW-96/2023]

(3 of 3)

(Ann.8) asked to the C.E.O. of all Zila Parishad to proceed to fill the vacancies, due to non-joining by the selected candidates. Thereafter, when under the directions of High Court vide interim order dated 04.05.2022 and 26.05.2022 passed in SBCWP No.17700/2018 by the Principal Seat at Jodhpur, respondents have re-initiated process of document verification vide order dated 07.09.2022 (Ann.9) to fillup 4000 vacancies, in pursuance to the LDC Direct Recruitment-2013. The petitioner has sought to reconsider his candidature, on the basis of acquiring qualification of RS-CIT Certificate dated 15.01.2015 in the meanwhile.

¶28

It is not in dispute that the cut off date for acquiring the qualification of RS-CIT Certificate in the present recruitment process is 30.06.2013 as determined by the respondent vide order dated 26.12.2017 (Ann. R/6), however the petitioner has no right to participate again in the recruitment process of LDC-2013, once he failed to honour his appointment order dated 26.06.2013 and his appointment has already been cancelled way back on 05.07.2013 itself due to not-joining by that date.

¶29

In view of the above, the instant writ petition has no force and same is hereby dismissed.

¶30

Stay application and any other pending application, if any, stand disposed of.

¶31

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶32

TN/264

Pawan Kumar Nagar S/O Shri Ram Niwas Nagar v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar Nagar S/O Shri Ram Niwas Nagar 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

Ashok Bairwa S/O Shri Ramnarain Bairwa Vs State of Rajasthan

Pooran Mal Saini S/O Ramhet Saini Vs the State of Rajasthan

Deepak Kumar Rathor S/O Shri Govind Lal Rathor Vs State of Rajasthan

Jitendra Singh Son of Shri Ramrakh Vs State of Rajasthan

Laxmi Kumari Meena Wife of Shri Mahaveer Prasad Meena Vs Revenue Board Rajasthan

Dr. Monikasoni D/O Pawankumarsoni Vs State of Rajasthan