Dismissed

Manoj Tanwar v. State of Raj Home and Ors.

Rajasthan HC18 Feb 2025CW/9386/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition challenging a 2010 Sub-Inspector (Police) recruitment under the Ex-serviceman category was dismissed. The court held that waiting/reserved lists lapse after six months per government circulars and precedents; as the selection had concluded with appointments and no vacant posts remained, no judicial interference at a belated stage was warranted.

What the court decided

AI extract

Manoj Tanwar Vs State of Raj Home and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:8054]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9386/2012

¶4

Manoj Tanwar S/o Shri Manak Chand Tanwar, H.no. 207/13, Gali No.4, Near Jadam Bhawan, Subhash Nagar, Ajmer.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary To The Government, Department Of Home, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

1. The Director General Of Police, Phq-Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶9

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Jaipur Road, Ajmer Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

¶10

Union Of India Through Secretary To The Government, Department Of Defence, 101, South Block, New Delhi-11

¶11

The Commanding Officer Co, 157 Light Air Defence Regiment Lt. Ad Regt Comp, C/o 56 Apo

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashish Saksena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, AAG

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment

¶15

18/02/2025

¶16

At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the respondents have submitted that the present petition is filed assailing an/a advertisement/selection/recruitment process initiated in the year 2010 wherein the petitioner(s) has/have applied for the post of SubInspector (Police) under Ex-serviceman category.

¶17

Subsequently, it is apprised that ever since issuance of the said advertisement/recruitment process much water has flown and as on date the impugned selection process is already over with all its consequential appointments being granted/made. Nevertheless, a subsequent fresh advertisement/selection process was also initiated and culminated. Thence, it can be deduced that as on date, no vacant seats/posts are available.

¶18

Lastly, it is apprised that the present lis /identical lis is no more res integra and is already adjudicated vide judgment dated

[2025:RJ-JP:8054]

[CW-9386/2012]

(2 of 2)

13.02.2025 passed in SBCWP No. 2706/2000 titled as Om Prakash Ghiya Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. Therefore, the said ratio can be made applicable to the present petition also.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner(s) is unable to refute the aforementioned contentions or substantiate the availability of seats/ survival of the lis in hand. 5. In pursuance of the contentions noted insofar, this Court deems it apposite to place reliance upon the ratio encapsulated in State of Orissa & Anr. v. Raj Kishore Nanda & Ors. reported in (2010) 6 SCC 777, Girdhar Kumar Dadhich Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2009) 2 SCC 706, Union of India v. B. Valluvan reported in (2006) 8 SCC 686 and Raj Rishi Mehra & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2013) 12 SCC 243 , and the circulars issued by the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Personnel dated 19.07.2001 bearing No. F.7(2)/DOP/A-2/81 Pt. and Øekad i-7 ¼2½ dkfeZd@d&2@81 ikVZ dated 13.01.2016 passed by jktLFkku ljdkj dkfeZd ¼d&2½ foHkkx, whereby it is made unambiguous that qua the selection process for any public service examination, the waiting/reserved list lapses after a span of six months from the date of its issuance, and if appointments are already made, then no judicial interference can be made at a belated stage.

¶24

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed in light of ratio passed in Om Prakash Ghiya (supra) which shall be treated as a part and parcel of the present judgment. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶25

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶26

Pooja /155

Manoj Tanwar v. State of Raj Home and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Manoj Tanwar v. State of Raj Home and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Rajasthan Vs Shayam Narain Sukhwal Son of Shri Bhori Lal Sukhwal

Geeta Devi Vs State Pension Departmentors

Ms Shikha Kumari Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Prem Chand Vs State Power and Energors

Manoj Mudgal Vs State Education Departmentors

Gangaram Son of Shri Tundaram Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation