Allowed

Lekha Shekhawat D/O Hanuman Singh Shekhawat, W/O Pushpendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan through Director

Rajasthan HC29 Jul 2024CW/3285/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought relief regarding recruitment examination participation. Court disposed of the instant petition by relying on similar directions issued in the coordinate bench case Rajkumar vs. State of Rajasthan.

What did the court decide?

Instant petition stood disposed of in light of similar directions issued in the case of Rajkumar; stay application also disposed of.

Lekha Shekhawat D/O Hanuman Singh Shekhawat, W/O… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:31857]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3285/2019

¶4

Lekha Shekhawat D/o Hanuman Singh Shekhawat, W/o Pushpendra Singh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Sewa, Tehsil Didwana, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan Through Director, Women And Child Development Department, 2, Jal Path, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur.

¶8

The Deputy Director (Administration), Integrated Child Development Services, 2, Jal Path, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur.

¶9

Rajasthan Staff Selection Board Through Its Chairman, State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur - 302018, Rajasthan.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Ram Partap Saini Mr. Gopesh Kumar Ms. Seema Shekhar
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Manoj Sharma, AAG
	Mr. Akash Gaur, Dy. GC
	Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Asst. GC

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶13

Order

¶14

29/07/2024

¶15

Counsel for the parties are in agreement that the controversy involved in this petition has already been set at rest by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of Rajkumar vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12182/2019). Counsel submits that the instant petition be disposed of in the light of similar directions issued in the case of Rajkumar (surpa).

[2024:RJ-JP:31857]

[CW-3285/2019]

(2 of 3)

Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. As well as the order passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rajkumar (supra).

¶20

Since the controversy involved in this petition has already been set at rest in the case of Rajkumar (supra) with the following prayers and directions:-

¶21

“This Court also observes that the petitioners have submitted applications for seeking permission for allowing their appearance in the Pre Primary Education Teacher Direct Recruitment Examination-2018 and then appeared in the written examination, whereafter on 31.07.2019, the petitioners have secured their respective roll numbers in the provisional list and were called for documents verification.

¶22

This Court also observes that the petitioners have made due compliance of the aforementioned condition No.14 of the advertisement in question. The petitioner clearly fell under the cut off marks criteria and were accordingly, called for documents verification by the respondents, and therefore, on this count also, the impugned action of the respondents in not issuing the requisite NOC in favour of the petitioners is not justified in law.

¶23

This Court further observes that in the case of other similarly situated persons, the respondents allowed them to participate in the recruitment process of the year 2013 (as reflected in Annexure-3 of the lead petition), whereas, the same treatment has not been meted out to the present petitioners, which is also not permissible in law.

¶24

Thus on a consideration of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and in light of the aforesaid observations, the present petitions are allowed and while quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 08.01.2019, the respondent authorities are directed to issue the requisite NOC to the petitioners for further process in the recruitment in question, and the said NOC upon being issued shall be duly considered by the concerned respondent authorities, in pursuance of the advertisement in question. All pending applications also stand disposed of.”

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:31857]

[CW-3285/2019]

Accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed of in the light of similar directions issued in the case of Rajkumar (supra).

¶29

Stay application as well as all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶30

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶31

Garima /31

Lekha Shekhawat D/O Hanuman Singh Shekhawat, W/O Pushpendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan through Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lekha Shekhawat D/O Hanuman Singh Shekhawat, W/O Pushpendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan through Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Kumar, S/O. Darshan Lal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Kailash Chand Meena, S/O. Budhalal Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan

Girdhari Lal Sharma and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Managing Committee Vs the Director/Commissioner

Mohit Kumar Yadav Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Bablu Ram Saini Son of Shri Gainda Lal Saini Vs State of Rajasthan