Dismissed

Hanuman Singhal S/O Shri Sita Ram Singhal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC15 May 2023SAW/407/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed an appeal challenging a single judge's order that rejected a writ petition seeking appointment to assist another candidate protected by a judicial order against termination, despite lower merit.

What the court decided

AI extract

Hanuman Singhal S/O Shri Sita Ram Singhal… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/010796]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 407/2023

¶4

¶5

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1577/2021

¶6

Hanuman Singhal S/o Shri Sita Ram Singhal, aged about 43 years, Resident of Village and Post Khirni, Tehsil Malarna Doongar, District Sawaimadhopur (Rajasthan) at present working as Senior Tuberculosis Supervisor (S.T.L.S.) under Chief Medical and Health Officer, Sawaimadhopur (Rajasthan).

¶7

----Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Rajasthan, through Principal Secretary to Government, Medical, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶10

Additional Director (Admn.), Medical and Health Services, Government of Rajasthan, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Appellant

¶13

: Mr. Laxmi Kant Malpura Advocate.

¶14

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

¶15

Judgment

¶16

15/05/2023

¶17

Heard.

¶18

This appeal is directed against order dated 26.04.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge by which writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

¶19

Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that rightly or wrongly one Vinod Kumar, who had secured less marks than the appellant, was protected by judicial order against his termination. Even if the merit list was revised and cut off marks were revised, which were more than the marks obtained by the

[2023/RJJP/010796]

[SAW-407/2023]

(2 of 3)

appellant, as Vinod Kumar was protected by the Court, the appellant was also entitled to issuance of writ of mandamus for grant of appointment to the appellant.

¶24

Submission made by learned counsel for the appellant proceeds on erroneous assumption of law that the appellant is entitled to seek parity with other candidate. 5. The writ petition filed by the appellant led to addition of supplementary marks not only of the appellant but of all other candidates with the result that cut off marks increased from 48.69 to 49.28 which obviously resulted in ouster of the appellant from the revised list.

¶25

It appears that some of the candidates, who were earlier appointed on the basis of the first merit list, were terminated by the respondents. They all approached the Court and this Court, in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction, taking into consideration that the persons who had rightly or wrongly continued in service for 4-5 years, protected them against the termination. Continuance of such persons under a judicial order has now been taken as a basis for the appellant to claim issuance of writ of mandamus for appointment.

¶26

We are afraid, such a direction cannot be issued by this Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Apparently, case of those, who have been protected by judicial order, was based on peculiar circumstances of their case. The appellant could not claim enforcing negative equality on the basis that those, who were otherwise not liable to be appointed were allowed to continue by

¶27

[2023/RJJP/010796]

¶28

[SAW-407/2023]

¶29

judicial order in peculiar circumstances of having continued for many years in service, being less meritorious to the appellant.

¶30

Claim of parity drawn by the appellant or a claim based on better merit both are not made out. Upon revision of the merit list, cut off marks being more than the marks secured by the appellant, he was not entitled to be appointed. The benefit granted to those, who were earlier appointed and continued in service, cannot be availed by the appellant because it is not a case where the appellant was also appointed and rightly or wrongly, he had continued in service. Therefore, on both counts, no relief can be granted to the appellant.

¶31

The appeal is, thus, liable to be dismissed and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶32

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ

¶33

MANOJ NARWANI /7

Hanuman Singhal S/O Shri Sita Ram Singhal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Hanuman Singhal S/O Shri Sita Ram Singhal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S H.M. Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Principal Commissioner

Smt Hemlata Hironi W/O Shri Omprakash Ramchandani Vs the State of Rajasthan

Pramod Bhati S/O Shri Satyanarayan Bhati Vs State of Rajasthan

Alwar Bar Association Vs the State of Rajasthan

Dashrath Singh Gurjar S/O Sh. Janak Singh Gurjar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ms. Pallavi Sharma Daughter of Shri Mahaveer Prasad Sharma Vs Rangoli Gardens Owners Welfare Society