Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Murari Lal vs State Of Raj And Ors on 27 February, 2020

Bench: Sabina, Narendra Singh Dhaddha

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

               D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 38/2015

                                      In

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13529/2010

Murari Lal S/o Shri Narottam Lal, aged about 44 years, Syorano
Ki Dhani, Post Devroad, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu Raj.
                                                                   ----Appellant
                                   Versus
1.      The State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Elementary
        And Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan,
        Secretariat, Jaipur
2.      The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner
3.      The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through
        Its Secretary
                                                                ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Garssa, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kapil Bardhar, Advocate HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 27/02/2020 Appellant has filed the appeal challenging the order dated 02.07.2014 as well as order dated 28.11.2014 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby, writ petition as well as review petition filed by the appellant were dismissed.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that respondent No.3 had issued an advertisement on 02.06.2004 for appointment on 25712 posts of Primary & Upper Primary School Teacher and the said number was later extended to 33936. Appellant took the examination and passed the same. Appellant (Downloaded on 05/03/2020 at 09:22:08 PM) (2 of 3) [SAW-38/2015] obtained 134 marks out of 200 marks. However, appellant was not given appointment in the general category male candidates. Appointment had been given to a candidate who had obtained 112 marks. Learned counsel has further submitted that in a similar case S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3495/2014, where a candidate had got 134 marks, was allowed by the learned Single Judge at Principal Bench, Jodhpur vide order dated 09.03.2017.

Learned Counsel for the respondent no.3 has opposed the appeal and has submitted that in an appeal filed against the order passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3495/2014, it was observed by the Division Bench vide order dated 18.04.2017 that the directions issued by learned Single Bench would not operate as a precedent and on the basis of the same no other person having 134 marks in the same process of selection shall become entitled to seek appointment as Teacher Grade-III. The order had been passed by the learned Single Judge on the basis of information supplied and whatever had happened was due to some confusion at administrative level.

Admittedly, appellant had taken the examination in terms of the advertisement dated 02.06.2004 and had obtained 134 marks out of 200 marks. The last candidate who had been given appointment in general category had secured 134 marks. The date of birth of said candidate was 16.06.1970, whereas, the date of birth of the appellant was 09.08.1970.

Learned Single Judge, thus, rightly held that the last candidate had got the appointment as he was older than the appellant. It has also been noticed by the learned Single Judge that the advertisement had been issued on 02.06.2004 and the result was declared on 11.01.2005, whereas, the writ petition had (Downloaded on 05/03/2020 at 09:22:08 PM) (3 of 3) [SAW-38/2015] been filed in the year 2010. Thus, writ petition also suffered from delay and laches.

It was the case of the appellant that a candidate had been appointed in general category who had obtained only 112 marks. However, the said contention of the appellant was denied by the respondents.

We have been shown the record relating to the selection and perusal of the same reveals that the last candidate who had been selected in the general category had obtained 134 marks and the date of birth of the said person was 16.06.1970. Thus, the contention raised by the appellant that in general category candidate having 112 marks had been given appointment was rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be upheld.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

                                    (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J                                      (SABINA),J

                                   Jatin/Gourav /16




                                                        (Downloaded on 05/03/2020 at 09:22:08 PM)




Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)