Dismissed

State of Rajasthan v. Pushkar Garg

Rajasthan HC26 Jul 2023SAW/85/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by the State against a Single Judge's order. The Court rejected an application to condone a 690-day delay due to lack of explanation and also found no merit in the appeal based on a prior single bench decision.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act dismissed; Intra-court appeal dismissed.

State of Rajasthan Vs Pushkar Garg — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:23639-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 85/2022

¶4

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶5

The Additional Commissioner-Cum-Joint Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶6

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Pratapgarh.

¶7

----Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Pushkar Garg S/o Shiv Lal Garg, Hanuman Chowk, Naya Bus Stand, Village Rathora, Tehsil Sarada, District Udaipur Raj.

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Utkarsh Gurjar for
	Mr. Sunil Beniwal,AAG
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. JS Bhaleria

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT

¶13

Order

¶14

26/07/2023

¶15

This intra court appeal is filed by the State being aggrieved with the judgment dated 06.11.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2622/2018 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the order dated 02.01.2018 passed by the respondents rejecting the candidature of the respondent for appointment on the post of LDC has been set aside.

¶16

The learned Single Judge has directed the respondents to award bonus marks to the respondent based on the experience

¶17

[2023:RJ-JD:23639-DB]

¶18

[SAW-85/2022]

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

certificate produced by him, with the rider that if the petitioner is otherwise eligible and stands in merit.

¶21

The present appeal is filed with the delay of 690 days and an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed with a prayer to condone the said delay. Reply to the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it is contended that the delay in filing the present appeal has not been satisfactorily explained.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application for condonation of delay.

¶23

The State has averred that the judgment in the writ petition filed by the respondents was passed on 06.11.2019, however, some time lapsed in obtaining the certified copy of the petition and after obtaining the certified copy of the judgment, copy was sent to the Department for deliberation, thereafter, the decision was taken to file an appeal against the impugned order in June, 2019 by the concerned Committee. Thereafter, officer in-charge was appointed to file the appeal in the matter, and he was directed to supply the additional documents pertaining to the controversy and some time has lapsed in preparing the special appeal.

¶24

Having gone through the averments made in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, we are of the considered opinion that the State has hopelessly failed to explain the delay in filing the present appeal. The date of obtaining the certified copy of the impugned judgment is not indicated and when the certified copy of the judgment was forwarded to the officer concerned with opinion to file appeal is also not indicated. The date of the decision to file the appeal by the concerned authority has not been

¶25

[2023:RJ-JD:23639-DB]

¶26

[SAW-85/2022]

¶27

indicated and when the officer in-charge was appointed and when he contacted the advocate for filing the appeal is mentioned.

¶28

We are of the view that the delay in filing the present appeal has not at all been explained by the State. Hence, there is no hesitation in holding that no case for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal is made out.

¶29

Apart from that, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents following the another judgment passed in Single Bench in SB Civil Writ Petition NO. 4637/2019 decided on 12.4.2019 (Anoop Kakra Vs. State Rajasathan & Anr.) which has attained finality, hence, on merit also, no case for interference is made out.

¶30

Resultantly, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed and appeal is also dismissed.

¶31

(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J

¶32

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶33

53-/-arti

State of Rajasthan v. Pushkar Garg

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Rajasthan v. Pushkar Garg

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

Narain Singh @ Narendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S. Shreenath Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan

Harlal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Kamli Ram Meena Vs Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.

Shri Badiya Mata Shaktipeeth Pvt. Ltd. Trust Vs the State of Rajasthan

Pradeep Isarwal Vs the State of Rajasthan