Dismissed

Vishnu Khandelwal and Ors. v. State Tourism Departmentors

Rajasthan HC13 Dec 2023SAW/913/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A.D.B. special appeal dismissed. The bench held that since the selection process for tourist guide licenses had already concluded in 2012, challenging the non-selection from 2014 was academic. The court also held that any challenge to reservation rules could be raised against future notifications if grievances persisted.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed as the selection process had concluded, making the challenge academic, and grievances regarding future notifications can be raised therein.

Vishnu Khandelwal and Ors. Vs State Tourism… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:39490-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.913/2014

¶4

¶5

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.20526/2012

¶6

Vishnu Khandelwar S/o Sh. Bhagwan Sahai Khandelwal, aged about 43 years, 38-A, Pratap Nagar, Kandira Marg, Kalwar Road, Jaipur.

¶7

Vinod Sharma S/o Sh. Mahadev Prasad Sharma, aged about 30 years, Mandhi Ka Bas, Parkho Ka Mohalla, Ward No. 9, Plot No. 320, Amer, Jaipur.

¶8

Mukesh Atri S/o Sh. Taj Swaroop Atri, aged about 32 years, P.H. Road, Opp. DRM Office, Jaipur.

¶9

Jaspreet Singh S/o Sh. Devendra Pal Singh, aged about 36 years, 24-25, Sagar Apartment, Plot No.1, Shiv Shakti Nagar, Nirman Nagar, Jaipur.

¶10

-----Petitioners-Appellants

¶11

Versus

¶12

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Tourism Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶13

Commissioner, Rajasthan Tourism Department, Hotel Khasa Khoti Complex, M.I. Road Jaipur.

¶14

Director, Department Of Archeology And Museums, Jaipur. 4. Alok Singh Khinchi S/o Amar Singh, aged about 33 years, Opp. Ship House, Near Ganesh Mandir, Jodhpur.

¶15

Om Prakash Chauhan S/o Mangal Singh Chauhan, aged about 29 years, Magra Panjala, Jodhpur.

¶16

Sumer Singh S/o Bhanwar Singh, aged about 34 years, Behind PHED Office, Paharganj-II, Jodhpur.

¶17

Sayyed Tanveer Ali S/o Sayyed Mehar Ali, aged about 33 years, Indira Colony, Rama Ki Piao,mandora Road, Jodhpur.

¶18

Tilkesh Sharma S/o Labh Chand Sharma, aged 37 years, 17, Premid Wara Marg, Amal Ka Kanta, Udaipur.

¶19

Kailash Meena S/o Shri Badri Narayan Meena, aged about 26 years, A-1, Behind Nahargarh, Meena Basti Jaipur.

¶20

Ramesh Chand Meena S/o Shri Ramdhan Meena, aged

¶21

(2 of 5)

¶22

[2023:RJ-JP:39490-DB]

¶23

[SAW-913/2014]

¶24

about 33 years, Bhatia Sesavas, V.K.I. Tehsil Amer, Jaipur.

¶25

Jitendra Singh Hapawat S/o Sh. Vasudev Singh Hapawat, aged about 28 years, 44, Major Bane Singh Colony, Khatipura, Jaipur.

¶26

Sonu Gurjar S/o Sh. Satyanarain Gurjar, aged about 29 years, 113/227, Kagdiwada, Brahampuri, Jaipur.

¶27

Vikram Riya S/o Shri Gopal Lal Riya, aged about 29 years, Plot No. 140/17C, Kagdiwada, Brahampuri, Jaipur.

¶28

Mahesh Kumar Verma S/o Sh. Nanag Ram Verma, aged about 44 years, 696 Bandari Ka Naski, Lawan Ka Ghair, Jaipur.

¶29

Lavnesh Kumar S/o Sh. Naval Kishore Verma, aged about 31 years, 696, Bandari Ka Nasik, Lawan Ka Ghair, Jaipur.

¶30

Guru Sharan Verma S/o Sh. Sawami Sharan Verma, aged about 44 years, 4222, Nindar Rao Ka Rasta Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur.

¶31

Asif Qureshi S/o Sh. Sakil Qureshi, aged about 36 years, 359 Hawamahal Road, Old Vidhan Sabha Ke Samane, Jaipur.

¶32

Lakhan Gurjar S/o Sh. Mohar Pal Gurjar, aged about 29 years, 38 Jagga Ki Bavdi, Galta Road, Jaipur. -----Respondents

¶33

Ashish Gupta S/o Sh. Banwari Lal Gupta, aged about 37 years, F-11, Ramesh Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.

¶34

Dinesh Kumar Paliwal S/o Sh. Amba Shankar Paliwal, aged about 44 years, House No. 450, Govind Rajaio Ka Rasta, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur.

¶35

Hanuman Singh S/o Late Sh. Gulab Singh, aged about 41 years, Village And Post Maid, Tehsil Viratnagar, District Jaipur.

¶36

Mahesh Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Damodar Prasad Sharma, aged about 34 years, D-359 (E-3), Goverdhanpuri, Near Galta Gate, Jaipur.

¶37

Mohit Sharma S/o Sh. Sitaram Sharma, aged about 30 years, Rawat Bhawan, Sagar Mohalla, Dausa.

¶38

Vinay Prakash S/o Sh. Bajrang Lal, aged about 35 years, 1524, Katiyon Ki Pipli, Ramganj Bazar, Jaipur.

¶39

Santoshi Lal Sharma S/o Sh. Jeevan Ram Sharma, aged

¶40

(3 of 5)

¶41

[2023:RJ-JP:39490-DB]

¶42

[SAW-913/2014]

¶43

about 32 years, Near Ambeshwar Temple, Ward No. 1, Sagar Road, Jaipur.

¶44

Subhash Jatwal S/o Kabool Chand Jatwal, aged about 25 years, Plot No. 36-A, Bharat Nagar, Natara Road, Kunda, Amer, Jaipur.

¶45

Vinit Kumar Marotia S/o Bhanwar Lal Marotia, aged about 30 years, House No. 1649, Baba Harishchandra Marg, Indira Bazar, Jaipur.

¶46

----Performa-Respondents

¶47

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Nikhil Simlota For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ravi Chirania with Mr. Gaurav Kumawat

¶48

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶49

Order

¶50

13/12/2023

¶51

This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.05.2014 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.20526/2012 whereby, the writ petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

¶52

The petitioners were aggrieved of their non-selection by the respondents. The challenge was made on two counts; (i) pertaining to the procedure adopted for selection and (ii) provision of reservation by the respondents for those belonging to the SC, ST and OBC categories. The petition was dismissed mainly on account of the fact that the challenge was laid by the petitioners after participating in the selection process. Learned Single Judge has upheld the procedure adopted for the selection, however, in

¶53

(4 of 5)

¶54

[2023:RJ-JP:39490-DB]

¶55

[SAW-913/2014]

¶56

relation to challenge laid to the reservation, the issue was kept open.

¶57

Learned counsel for the respondents indicated that the challenge was laid to the selection process, which started in the year 2007 and culminated in the year 2012. Whereafter one more selection has taken place and therefore, the appeal has been rendered infructuous and, the challenge laid also, is academic only.

¶58

Learned counsel for the appellants contested the said submissions with the indications that as the petitioners have questioned the validity of the applicability of reservation dehors the provisions in the Act and the fact that person is not getting employment but only was selected for the purpose of granting license as tourist guide, the provisions of Article 16 does not even apply.

¶59

We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶60

It is not in dispute that the challenge was made by the petitioners after facing the selection and failing to get the license as tourist guide. On that count, the rejection of the petition by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted.

¶61

Insofar as, the challenge to reservation is concerned, apparently one more selection process has taken place and the petitioners after having suffered the judgment dated 27.05.2014 could have challenged the said advertisement. However, the same has not been done.

¶62

(5 of 5)

¶63

[2023:RJ-JP:39490-DB]

¶64

[SAW-913/2014]

¶65

As the learned Single Judge has kept it open in the impugned judgment dated 27.05.2014, if the petitioners have any grievance qua any advertisement to be issued by the respondents in future, it would always be open for them to question the validity of the said notification.

¶66

Insofar as, the present petition is concerned, which essentially pertains to selection, which was commenced in the year 2007 and culminated in the year 2012, the exercise has been rendered academic only and therefore, no interference is called for in the appeal.

¶67

Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.

¶68

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶69

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶70

MADAN/26

Vishnu Khandelwal and Ors. v. State Tourism Departmentors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu Khandelwal and Ors. v. State Tourism Departmentors

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

M/S. Swastik Copper Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Shri Anuj Mathur

Vinod Kumar Meena S/O Shri Bharat Lal Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan

Vinod S/O Shri Sohan Lal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sandeep S/O Kallu Vs State of Rajasthan

Madhvi Dadhichi Wife of Shri Mohit Sharma Vs Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur