Disposed

Suresh Kumar Saini v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC23 Feb 2024CW/1832/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition by directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation regarding delayed service joining. The respondent Commissioner was directed to allow joining or pass a speaking order within eight weeks. The stay application was also disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Fresh representation directed; direction to respondent to allow joining or pass speaking order within eight weeks.

Suresh Kumar Saini Vs the State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:9365]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1832/2024

¶4

Suresh Kumar Saini S/o Ramdev Saini, Aged About 30 Years, Ward No.7, Dhani Batiyala, Gadrata, Tehsil Khetri, Dist. Jhunjhunu (Raj)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Local Self Government, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Jodhpur, Rajasthan

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Suresh	Khadav for
	Mr. Sanjay	RajPandit
For Respondent(s)	: -

¶11

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶12

Order

¶13

23/02/2024

¶14

The petitioner has approached this Court with a grievance that in spite of the fact that appointment order came to be issued in his favour on 02.09.2018 by the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur, he has not been allowed to join the services.

¶15

It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondents have deferred his joining on the pretext that certain clarification is required from the State Government.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has made various representation to the respondents in this regard, but the same have remained unheeded and no decision has been taken by the State and the respondents.

(2 of 2)

[2024:RJ-JD:9365]

[CW-1832/2024]

The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a fresh representation along with the copies of the appointment order dated 02.09.2018; copy of earlier representations and a certified copy of the order instant within a period of 15 days.

¶21

In case, any such representation is addressed, it will be required of the respondent No.2 to either allow the petitioner to join or to pass a speaking order within a period of eight weeks, under intimation to the petitioner, indicating therein the reason for which the petitioner cannot be allowed to join.

¶22

It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide the representation has been issued only with a view to ensure expeditious redressal of petitioner’s grievance. The same may not be construed to be an order to decide the representation in a particular manner.

¶23

It will be open for the petitioner to challenge the communication received in furtherance of his representation, if the same is prejudicial to his rights.

¶24

The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶25

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶26

12-akansha/-

Suresh Kumar Saini v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar Saini 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

Vishna Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Seema Jain Vs State of Rajasthan

Lalit Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Virendra Tank Vs the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Sunil Kumar Bishnoi (Belt No. 315) Vs State of Rajasthan

Motiram Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan