Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 207 (RAJ)

Krishan Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2003-02-10

PRAKASH TATIA

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.The grievance of the petitioner is that initially the petitioner was selected for the post of para-teacher in the meeting held on 11th June, 2001. In that meeting petitioner's name was at S.No. 2 in the panel. Since the first candidate selected having first number in merit did not join the service, therefore, petitioner became eligible for appointment. However, an order dated 13th August, 2001 was issued stating that where no selection took place in the meeting held on 11th June, 2001, now selection be completed on 15.8.2001. According to petitioner, again the matter of appointment of the petitioner was considered in the meeting dated 15th August, 2001 and in that meeting petitioner's name was recommended for appointment to the post of para-teacher. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that despite all these, the respondent No. 5 was given appointment straightaway by the Block Development Officer-respondent No. 3. It is also submitted that respondent No. 5 Radha Krishan did not even apply for the post nor his case was ever considered by the Gram Panchayat or Gram Sabha. This action was challenged by the petitioner by making petition dated 1.2.2002 before the District Collector, copy of which is placed on record on Annex. 6. Since this petition was not decided by the District Collector, therefore, the petitioner submitted another application dated 18.2.2002. Still the District Collector did not decide the petition of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner approached this court for seeking relief for quashing of the order by which the respondent No. 5 was appointed. In the writ petition, petitioner prayed that the respondents be directed to maintain the previous order dated 15th August, 2001. 2. It appears from the facts of the case that the matter was pending before the District Collector at the time of filing of the writ petition for which petitioner gave reminder on 18.2.2002. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the District Collector though called the report, but still has not decided the petition of the petitioner. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the involvement of large number of disputed questions of fact, it will be appropriate to direct the learned District Collector, Hanumangarh to decide the petition of the petitioner after giving opportunity of hearing to all the effected parties. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the involvement of large number of disputed questions of fact, it will be appropriate to direct the learned District Collector, Hanumangarh to decide the petition of the petitioner after giving opportunity of hearing to all the effected parties. Since the petition of the petitioner is pending since 1.2.2002 before the District Collector, Hanumangarh, therefore, it is directed that the parties shall remain present before the District Collector, Hanumangarh on 24.2.2003. The learned District Collector, Hanumangarh may fix any convenient date for hearing the petition of the petitioner and may decide the same by brief reasoned order within a period of one month from 24.2.2003.The writ petition of the petitioner is, therefore, disposed of with above direction.Order accordingly. *******