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

Pawan Kumar Sharma vs State (Youth Affairs Sports)Anr on 1 December, 2017

Author: Chief Justice

Bench: Chief Justice

 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
                      JAIPUR
             D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 173 / 2015
Pawan Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Shivlahari Sharma, Aged About 38
Years, 65-B, Keshav Nagar, Hawa Sarak, Civil Lines, Jaipur (Raj.)
                                                       ----Appellant
                              Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Youth Affairs
and Sports Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat,
Jaipur

2. Secretary, Rajasthan State Sports Council, Sawai Mansingh
Stadium, Janpath, Behind Amar Jawan Jyoti , Jaipur
                                                   ----Respondents

_____________________________________________________ Appellant Present in Person : Mr. Pawan Kumar Sharma. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N. M. Lodha, Advocate General assisted by Mr. Deepak Bishnoi.

_____________________________________________________ HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI Order 01/12/2017

1. It may be hard case for the appellant but the law has to be followed.

2. Being overage, having attained the age of 35 years on January 1, 2013, appellant's case for grant of relaxation was considered by the competent authority in terms of Rule 42 of the Rajasthan State Sports Council Service Rules, 2006. Noting that earlier on Council had granted benefit of age relaxation to those who had worked on ad-hoc or on contract basis for years together and were continuing to work when advertisement was issued inviting applications to fill up the post on regular basis, similar (2 of 2) [SAW-173/2015] benefit was not accorded to the appellant for the reason he was a part time Karate Coach and had not worked continuously. This is the reason given by the learned Single Judge to deny the benefit to the appellant.

3. The writ appeal is dismissed.

(DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI),J. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG),C.J. A.Arora/-17.