Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Shyam Singh Shekhawat And Ors vs State (Education Department)Ors on 27 January, 2012
Author: Mn Bhandari
Bench: Mn Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER SB Civil Writ Petition No.908/2012 Shyam Singh Shekhawat & ors vs State of Rajasthan & ors 27.1.2012 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Petitioner No.1 present in person BY THE COURT:
It is stated that petitioner/s crossed the age limit provided for appointment to the post of PTI Gr II and Gr III.
Similar controversy came up before this Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Bardiya & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan & Anr. - SBCWP No.8046/2008, decided on 18.8.2011 and, therein, referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R.P.S.C., Ajmer Versus Smt. Anand Kanwar Civil Appeal No.52 of 1993, decided on 8.2.1995, the petitioners therein were not held within the age for appointment to the post in reference though a direction for consideration of the representation for grant of age relaxation was given. It is submitted that case of the petitioner/s may be covered by the aforesaid judgment and accordingly a direction may be given for consideration of the representation in the light of the fact that for last 13 years, no recruitment to the post of PTI Gr II and Gr III has been undertaken.
In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider petitioner/s' representation in the light of the judgment in the case of Pawan Kumar Bardiya (supra) and taking note of the hardship and the last recruitment being in the year 1998, respondents are expected to take a proper view as indicated in the judgment referred to above. It is clarified that respondents will apply the ratio of the aforesaid judgment instead of going into the facts therein. The petitioner/s will, however, enclose the copy of the judgment supra while copy of this order is served on the respondents.
Since representation would be considered as per directions of this court, respondents are expected not to reject application form of the petitioner/s as it is stated that application has to be submitted on-line, however, acceptance of the application form pursuant to the directions of this court would be on provisional basis and will remain subject to final outcome of the representation of the petitioner/s. As directed, consideration of the representation may accordingly be made at the earliest. In case of any difficulty in carrying out the directions of this court, respondents would be at liberty to seek clarification/ modification of this order. The same liberty is given to the petitioner/s in case any clarification is required.
This also disposes of the stay application.
(MN BHANDARI), J.
bnsharma All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed.
(BN Sharma) PS-cum-JW