Dismissed

Dhruv Singh Shri Shri Prahlad Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC9 May 2025CW/19077/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging his exclusion from the Nursing Officer recruitment, the petitioner sought to be considered under the OBC-NCL category citing expired and invalid caste certificates. The bench held that certificates dated 2011 and September 2023 violated the advertisement's one-year validity rule, dismissing the petition as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition formed the basis of the petitioner's claim for inclusion under the OBC-NCL category.

Dhruv Singh Shri Shri Prahlad Singh Vs State of… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:19645]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19077/2024

¶4

Dhruv Singh Shri Shri Prahlad Singh, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of House No. 1034/b, New Railway Colony, Kota, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To The Government, Department Of Medical And Health Services, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat Jaipur.

¶8

Director, Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. State Institute Of Health And Family Welfare (Sihfw), Jhalana Institutional Area, Jaipur, Through Its Director.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. PradeepSingh
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC
	Ms. Anjali Sharma
	Mr. Rahul Verma
	Mr. Prakhar Jain

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order

¶12

09/05/2025

¶13

Petitioner has come up with a case that although he applied under Unreserved category for the post of Nursing Officer, pursuant to the Advertisement dated 05.05.2023, however later on, he made a Representation, before publication of provisional merit list, to change his category from Unreserved to OBC-NCL and submitted Caste certificates of the year 2011 as also a recent Caste certificate dated 04.09.2023, but his candidature has not been considered under the OBC-NCL category.

¶14

Having heard the counsel for both parties and after perusal of the record, it has transpired that in respect of validity of the Caste certificate, there is a clear stipulation in Advertisement dated 05.05.2023 itself, which reads as under:

(2 of 2)

[2025:RJ-JP:19645]

[CW-19077/2024]

"N½ izek.k i=ksa dk lR;kiku

¶19

nLrkost lR;kiu ds fy, vkeaf=r fd, tkus dh fLFkfr esa ewy nLrkost dk feyku lgh ik;s tkus ij gh vkosnd dks oxZ fo'ks"k ¼vuqlwfpr tkfr@vuqlwfpr tutkfr@vU; fiNM+k oxZ@ vfr fiNM+k oxZ@vkfFkZd :i ls detksj oxZ@mRd`"V f[kykM+h@HkwriwoZ lSfud@fo/kok@fofPNUu fookg@fo'ks"k ;ksxtu vkfn½ dh ik=rk dk ykHk ns; gksxk! vr% ik=rk dh tk¡p gsrq fuEufyf[kr nLrkost izLrqr djuk lqfuf'pr dj fy;k tk;s%&

¶20

dkfeZd ¼d&2½ foHkkx ds ifji= fnukad 20-01-2022 ds vuqlkj vuqlwfpr tkfr] vuqlwfpr tutkfr] vU; fiNM+k oxZ] vfr fiNM+k oxZ ,oa vkfFkZd :i ls detksj oxZ ds vkosndksa dks vkj{k.k dk ykHk ysus gsrq tkfr izek.k&i= vkWuykbu vkosnu dh vfUre frfFk rd tkjh fd;k gqvk izLrqr djuk gksxkA mDr esa dkfeZd ¼d&2½ foHkkx ds ifji= Øekad ia- 7¼1½ dkfeZd@d&2@2019 fnukad 17-10-2022 ds vuqlkj fu/kkZj.k izek.k i= ,oa 'kiFk i= izLrqr fd;k tk ldsxkA vuqlwfpr tkfr@tutkfr ds fy, tkjh fd;s x;s tkfr izek.k i=ksa dh vof/k thou i;Zur gksxh tcfd vU; fiNM+k oxZ] vfr fiNM+k oxZ ,oa vkfFkZd :i ls detksj oxZ ds fy, lacf/kr izek.k i= dks Øhehys;j esa ugha gksus lac/kh rF; dks rhu o"kZ ds fof/k lEer 'kiFk i= ds vk/kkj ij ekU;rk nh tk;sxhA Øhehys;j esa ugha gksus laca/kh izek.k i= ,d o"kZ ds fy, ekU; gksxkA ,d ckj Øhehys;j esa ugha gksus dk izek.k i= tkjh gksus ds mijkUr vxj izkFkhZ vkxkeh o"kZ esa Hkh Øhehys;j esa ugha gS rks ,slh fLFkfr esa mlls lR;kfir 'kiFk i= ysdj iwoZ esa tkjh izek.k i= dks gh eku fy;k tk;sxkA ,slk vf/kdre rhu o"kZ rd fd;k tk ldrk gSA"

¶21

Indisputably, the Caste certificate of OBC-NCL category relied upon by the petitioner is of the year 2011, which is of no avail for the present Recruitment-2023. As far as the subsequent and latest Caste certificate dated 04.09.2023 is concerned, same also do not fall within the period, preceding one year from last cut off date of submission of the online application form.

¶22

Hence, this Court finds that the respondents have not committed any illegality/ perversity in not considering the candidature of petitioner under the OBC-NCL category, for want of submission of the proof within the prescribed criteria.

¶23

Counsel for petitioner, after arguing the writ petition for some time, seeks permission to withdraw the same.

¶24

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶25

Stay application and any other pending application, if any, stand disposed of.

¶26

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶27

RONAK JAIMAN/15

Dhruv Singh Shri Shri Prahlad Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhruv Singh Shri Shri Prahlad 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pawan Kumar Swarnkar S/O Shri Gheesa Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Shri Shahid Khan S/O Shri Bhure Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Geeta Devi Wife of Shri Thawarmal Vs State of Rajasthan

Dinesh Kumar Kukna, S/O Mr. Mukhram Vs Joint Additional Secretary - I

Udai Singh S/O Shri Ramswaroop Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan

Nemi Chand Parth S/O Ghanshyam Parth Vs State of Rajasthan