Chhotu Singh vs State Of Raj. & Ors on 20 March, 2009

[Cites 3, Cited by 6]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Chhotu Singh vs State Of Raj. & Ors on 20 March, 2009

Bench: H.R. Panwar

                                                                 1
                                                SBCW NO. 1196/2009


   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR

                           ORDER

S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1196/2009 Chhotu Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Date of Order :: 20.03.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. R.S.Choudhary & Mr.J.R.Chawel, for the petitioner. Mr. R.L.Jangid, Addl. Advocate General for the respondents.

By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to consider his case and appoint him on the post of Prabodhak in pursuance of the Advertisement Annex.4.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in para No.3 of the reply filed by the respondents, it has been stated that at the time of scrutiny of the documents, the respondent Department found that the petitioner is overage, therefore, at that time he was not given appointment. However, the matter of the petitioner was again considered and it was found that he is within age limit and therefore, his case was sent to the Directorate for seeking permission. It has further been stated that in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 8066/2008 "Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors." by order dated 16.10.2008, this Court restrained the respondents to fill up all unfilled remaining vacancies of Prabodhak in Jodhpur district.

2 SBCW NO. 1196/2009

However, it was kept open to make appointments of the person as Prabodhak in compliance of the directions given by the Court in specific cases. Thus, according to the petitioner, on two counts, the petitioner was denied appointment.

From the perusal of the reply, it is clear that it is admitted case of the respondents that the petitioner has wrongly been denied consideration for appointment on the post of Prabodhak on the ground of his being overage. When the respondents themselves have admitted in the reply that the petitioner is within the age limit and he has been wrongly denied consideration for appointment, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Prabodhak if he is otherwise eligible and stands in merit considering him to be within age limit as provided under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008. No costs.

(H.R. PANWAR), J.

rp 3 SBCW NO. 1196/2009 S.B.CIVIL MISC.STAY APPLICATION NO. 2192/2009 IN S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1196/2009 Date of Order :: 20.03.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. R.S.Choudhary & Mr.J.R.Chawel, for the petitioner. Mr. R.L.Jangid, Addl. Advocate General for the respondents.

Since the writ petition has been allowed, the stay petition stands disposed of.

(H.R. PANWAR), J.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur