Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rakesh Kumar Bishnoi vs The Comma. 10Th Battalion Rac Bkn And Ors ... on 7 April, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:18089]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1933/2018
Rakesh Kumar Bishnoi S/o Shri Devi Lal, R/o Village 2 Tk, Tehsil
Raisingh Nagar, District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Commandant 10Th Battalion R.a.c. I.r., Bikaner
Rajasthan Through Its Commandant, Bikaner Rajasthan.
2. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Deputy Secretary, Home
Department Group-I, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Additional Director General Of Police, Police
Headquarter, Arms Battalion, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. The Superintendent Of Police, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : None present.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raj Singh Bhati for
Mr. Ritu Raj Singh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral) 07/04/2025
1. Petitioner herein, an aspirant to become a Cook pursuant to an advertisement dated 15.11.2017 (Annex.2), inter-alia seeks an appropriate writ, order and/or direction to recall the interview selection process for the post in question and to call him for interview.
2. When called out for hearing none appears for the petitioner. It appears that by sheer passage of time, the nature of relief sought by the petitioner is rendered stale and meaningless and/or otherwise he seems to have acquiesced to his fait accompli and (Downloaded on 10/04/2025 at 09:32:42 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:18089] (2 of 3) [CW-1933/2018] moved on in life for greener pastures. That is why perhaps, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.
3. Apart from that, the relevant stand taken by the respondents in reply to grounds (I to X) is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"That it is respectfully submitted that all the contentions raised in grounds-I to X of the writ petition are wholly misconceived and untenable in the eyes of law, hence denied and shall always be deemed to have been denied unless they are specifically admitted by the answering respondents. The averments made in these grounds are nothing but the repetition of the averments made in paras No.1 to 10 of the writ petition, which have been suitably replied hereinabove and therefore, no further repetition is required and answering respondents pray that the reply to paras No.1 to 10 may also be treated as a part of reply to these grounds. However, at the cost of repetition, it is humbly submitted that vide amended advertisement Ex.R.2, dated 18.11.2017 it was made known to all the applicants that they can submit their application form up to 04.12.2017 in the office either by hand or through post and on 06.12.2007 a list of the applicants found eligible for interview shall be displayed/pasted on the Notice Board of the office. It was further made clear/known to all that interview shall be taken on 07.12.2017 at sharp 10.00 am. at the office of 10 Battalion RAC (I.R.), Bikaner and regarding this no separate information will be sent to any candidates and no TA will be payable to the applicants. This amended advertisement was also uploaded on the official site of the respondent/Department i.e. www.police.rajasthan.gov.in and remaining rules and conditions shall remain same. This amended advertisement was also published in the newspaper. Thus, all applicants were clearly informed that interview shall be held at 10.00 a.m. Meaning thereby, applicant/s was/were required to ensure that they shall reach the office sharp at 10.00 a.m. It is the admission of the petitioner himself that he did not reached by the said time i.e. 10.00 a.m, but he reached there at 10.10 a.m. and by the said time all the applicants/candidates who came for appeared were allowed to enter the Gate for interview and thereafter no candidate, including the petitioner was allowed to enter the Gate. If despite full knowledge the petitioner could not reach the place of interview on time (i.e. at 10.10 a.m.) the answering respondents cannot be blamed and/or held responsible for said delay. As per rules no entry was permitted at 10.00 a.m. and it is not the case of the petitioner that some persons/s was/were allowed and he was not allowed. There is no arbitrariness in the action of the answering respondents in the present recruitment. Throughout the transparency was maintained in the selection process and interview were also taken as per rules.(Downloaded on 10/04/2025 at 09:32:42 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18089] (3 of 3) [CW-1933/2018] So far as the contention of the petitioner that he lodge a complaint on Sampark Portal is concerned, the petitioner was already informed about the result vide letter dated 28.02.2018, Ex.R.5. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the provisions of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India are not at all attracted. The selection process is already over and from all points of view the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief from this Hon'ble Court."
4. I am in agreement with the aforesaid stand taken by the respondents in their reply as no further affidavit and/or rejoinder has been filed to controvert the same.
5. Dismissed.
6. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J 114-SP/skm/-
(Downloaded on 10/04/2025 at 09:32:42 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)