Allowed

Jitendra Kumar Son of Shri Mahendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC26 May 2023WRW/85/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, allowed the review application against an order dated 10.01.2023. The bench condoned the delay and directed the correction of a clerical error in the operative portion of the earlier order, changing the word 'dismissed' to 'disposed of' in view of a subsequent declaration of results.

What did the court decide?

Correction of the order dated 10.01.2023 to substitute the word 'dismissed' with 'disposed of' in para No. 3, and uploading the corrected order online with an asterisk mark.

Jitendra Kumar Son of Shri Mahendra Singh Vs State… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/012145]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 85/2023

¶4

Jitendra Kumar Son Of Shri Mahendra Singh, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Jakhora, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. State Of Rajasthan, Department Of Personnel, Government Secretariat, Jaipur Through Its Joint Secretary.

¶8

1. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its Secretary.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Neeraj Kumar Sharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	M. F. Baig

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶12

Order

¶13

26/05/2023

¶14

Application for review has been filed by the petitioner, seeking review of the order dated 10.01.2023 only to the effect that in the operative portion of order in para No.3, in stead of “dismissed” the word be substituted “disposed of”. Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has also been filed.

¶15

For reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay in filing the review application is condoned.

¶16

Heard learned counsel for both parties.

¶17

On behalf of RPSC, learned counsel submits that the category of petitioner from OBC to MBC has already been changed on 17.09.2021, even prior to passing the interim order dated 18.09.2021 in favour of the petitioner, and after deciding the writ

[2023/RJJP/012145]

[WRW-85/2023]

(2 of 2)

petition vide order dated 10.01.2023, result of petitioner in MBC Category has also been declared vide order dated 17.05.2023. Counsel for RPSC does not dispute that in view of the declaration of result vide order dated 17.05.2023, the writ petition of petitioner deserves to be disposed of.

¶22

Copy of the order dated 17.05.2023 placed on record by learned counsel for RPSC, is taken on record.

¶23

In view of above, the error occurred in the order dated 10.01.2023 as noticed hereinabove seems apparent on the face of record, therefore, same is ordered to be corrected.

¶24

In view of above, in the order dated 10.01.2023, the word in para No.3 of the order “dismissed” be corrected in red ink as the word “disposed of”. The correction made in the original order be upload online showing asterisk (*) mark in the order that the word in para No.3 of the order “disposed of” has been corrected subsequently. Rest part of the order shall remain as such.

¶25

Review application stands allowed.

¶26

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶27

TN/50

Jitendra Kumar Son of Shri Mahendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Kumar Son of Shri Mahendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

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

Pawan Kumar Nagar S/O Shri Ram Niwas Nagar Vs the 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

Suresh Bavri Son of Shri Dharu Ram Bavri Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sudharshan Gaur S/O Jagdish Gaur Vs Principal Secretary

Resham Bai Chauhan D/O Babu Lal Chauhan, W/O Late Bahadur Vs the State of Rajasthan