Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.22 seconds)
Bhuvnesh Mehara D/O Onkar Lal Mehara vs The State Of Rajasthan on 11 July, 2024 cites

Suman Yadav And Ors vs State (Panchayati Raj Dep)Ors on 11 May, 2012

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the prayers advanced by the petitioners and consequently, prayed for the dismissal of the instant petition. In this regard, learned counsel submitted that during the pendency of the present proceedings, in compliance with the directions of this Court, the respondents formulated a high-level committee in order to explore the possibility of adjusting the petitioners against future vacancies. However, the said possibility cannot fruition for the reason that in light of the dictum enunciated by the Division Bench in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 847/2022 titled as Suman and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., which was (Downloaded on 18/07/2024 at 08:51:58 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:25538] (10 of 14) [CW-3527/2024] subsequently upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court, a fresh/revised merit list was prepared by the respondents, in which, the petitioners were found not to be meritorious. Moreover, as per the appointment letters issued to the petitioners by the respondents, it was made rather clear that the petitioners appointment shall be subject to any litigation. Moreover, said litigation was not confined to any particular individual(s) as well. Subsequently, the dictum enunciated by the Division Bench vide order dated 02.02.2023, came to be confirmed/upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 06.10.2023. Therefore, as on date, the revised merit list so prepared in pursuance of said judgments, is final, which ousts the candidatures of the petitioners on account of them being non-meritorious. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners were merely rendering their services on probation, not having been confirmed in service yet. Lastly, it was averred that as per the revised merit list, in between the petitioners and the selected candidates, there lies the candidature of 285 candidates who are more meritorious than the petitioners. Therefore, giving appointment to the petitioners shall not only be arbitrary and unjust on account of them being non-meritorious, but also discriminatory qua said 285 candidates.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - M N Bhandari - Full Document

Rajesh Kumar & Ors. Etc vs State Of Bihar & Ors. Etc on 13 March, 2013

submitted that if the appointment, joining, training and rendering of services by the petitioners for a period of one year was as per the due selection process sans concealment and/or misrepresentation/fraud, then in light of the dictum enunciated in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5355/2013 titled as Sanju Nama vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr., Rajesh Kumar and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in (2013) 4 SCC 690 and Vikas Pratap Singh and Ors. vs. State of Chattisgarh and (Downloaded on 18/07/2024 at 08:51:58 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:25538] (9 of 14) [CW-3527/2024] Ors. reported in (2013) 14 SCC 494, the services of the petitioners who were regularly appointed ought not to be discontinued, despite the change in merit. Rather, the same should be continued. Moreover, in an eventuality where the same is not possible on account of non-existence of vacancies, such appointees should be adjusted against the future vacancies as the nature of job is recurring.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 614 - T S Thakur - Full Document

Praveen Senwar vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 September, 2022

In this regard, one petition, namely S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10276/2022 titled as Praveen Senwar vs. State of Rajasthan along with other petitions, came to be filed before this Court. In the said petition, a challenge was raised against the answer key so released by the respondent-RSS, more particularly qua Question Nos. 6 and 38. However, the Coordinate Bench found no substance in the petition and vide order dated 28.09.2022, dismissed the petition.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 4 - Cited by 3 - A Bhansali - Full Document

Lalit Mohan vs Md, Rsrtc, Jaipur on 13 December, 2011

In this regard, reliance was also placed upon the dictum enunciated in D.B. Civil Appeal No. 793/2014 titled as Mohan Lal vs. RSRTC. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that considerations such as other candidates being in the revised merit list cannot outweigh the accumulated rights of the petitioners, as said candidates were not parties in the earlier rounds of litigation before this Court. Therefore, such candidates cannot seek a relief at such a belated stage. Hence, in cumulative light of the above, it was prayed that the instant petition be allowed in terms of the prayers so advanced.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - M N Bhandari - Full Document

Sanjay Nama vs Smt Anju Verma And Anr on 6 February, 2017

submitted that if the appointment, joining, training and rendering of services by the petitioners for a period of one year was as per the due selection process sans concealment and/or misrepresentation/fraud, then in light of the dictum enunciated in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5355/2013 titled as Sanju Nama vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr., Rajesh Kumar and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in (2013) 4 SCC 690 and Vikas Pratap Singh and Ors. vs. State of Chattisgarh and (Downloaded on 18/07/2024 at 08:51:58 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:25538] (9 of 14) [CW-3527/2024] Ors. reported in (2013) 14 SCC 494, the services of the petitioners who were regularly appointed ought not to be discontinued, despite the change in merit. Rather, the same should be continued. Moreover, in an eventuality where the same is not possible on account of non-existence of vacancies, such appointees should be adjusted against the future vacancies as the nature of job is recurring.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1