Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
State Of Raj vs Jitendra Singh Rathore And Anr on 5 July, 2018
Author: Munishwar Nath Bhandari
Bench: Munishwar Nath Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 800/2018
State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Department Of
Personnel And Administrative Reforms, Secretariat, Jaipur.
----Respondent/Appellant
Versus
1. Jitendra Singh Rathor S/o Laxman Singh Rathor, aged 33 years, R/o Vandp Damri, District Dungarpur Rajasthan
2. Ranu Singh S/o Ashu Singh, aged 39 years, R/o 5 B, Hanwant Colony Rai Ka Bag, Jodhpur Raj.
Petitioner/Respondents
3. The Commissioner, Department Of Excise, Govt. Of Rajasthan , 2 Gumaniyawala, Panchwati, Udaipur.
4. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission , Ajmer Rajasthan
----Respondents-Performa Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhinav Sharma, AAG with Mr. Anand Sharma For Respondent(s) : -
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI Order 05/07/2018 This appeal has been filed against an interim order dated 05.03.2018, passed by the learned Single Judge, restraining further process of recruitment of the post of RAS and RTS.
It is stated that beyond the prayer made in the stay application, relief has been granted whereby the entire process of selection of Rajasthan State & Subordinate Services Combined Examination 2016, has been kept in abeyance. The case could not be heard finally though listed on many occasions. Taking into consideration the aforesaid, (2 of 2) [SAW-800/2018] impugned order dated 05.03.2018 may be set aside. It is more so when the State would be affected on account of non-filing of vacancies on posts for which selection has been made.
The controversy raised in the writ petition pertains to the vacancies left unfilled after the selection pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 2012. According to the petitioners, unfilled seats needs to be filled in the next selection year but while issuing advertisement in the year 2013 and then in 2016, unfilled vacancies of 2012 were not included. They were included now while issuing the advertisement in the year 2018. The appellants have clarified the aforesaid. It is stated that the selection pursuant to the advertisement of the year 2012 remain in litigation thus could not be finalised. It is due to the aforesaid that the left out vacancies could not be added in the advertisement of 2013 and 2016.
We find that controversy raised in the writ petition and given above would be decided by the learned Single Judge in the pending writ petition thus cannot be touched by us.
Thus without causing interference the impugned order, this appeal is disposed of with the request to learned Single Judge to hear and decide the pending writ petition at the earliest and, if possible, on the next date of hearing. This would, however, not preclude the appellant to seek modification of the order under challenge and, for that, this order would not come in their way.
Since the appeal is disposed of without interfering in the impugned order, application for condonation of delay is also disposed of. (DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI),J (M.N.BHANDARI),J Manish/s-64 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)