Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1133 (RAJ)

Pradeep Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2019-04-12

ARUN BHANSALI

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the inaction of the respondents pursuant to the advertisement dated 12.4.2018 (Annex.1) issued by the respondents for recruitment on the post of Safai Karamchari. 2. It is inter alia indicated in the writ petition that despite drawing the names of the petitioners in the draw of lots (lottery) held by the respondents, the petitioners have not been accorded appointment for no apparent reason. 3. Notices of the petitions were issued. Pursuant thereto, a detailed reply has been filed by the respondents inter alia indicating that there were several complaints / objections regarding the candidature of various petitioners and based on the same, a Committee was appointed, which has examined the candidature of each selected candidate and has come up with the status, wherein, those candidates who are eligible and have fulfilled all the requirements, have been accorded appointment, those candidates who were ineligible, their candidature have been cancelled and those candidates whose forms have deficiencies, they have been granted opportunity to do the needful for removing the deficiencies and, therefore, the grievance as raised in the writ petitions has been taken care of. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in SBCW No. 17226/2018 submits that all the petitioners except petitioner No. 14 Mr. Vikram Sarwan have been accorded appointment and qua Mr. Vikram Sarwan the deficiencies pointed out have been cured by the said petitioner. 5. In SBCW No. 17525/2018, though none is present for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondents submits that candidature of Mr. Ram Singh, Mr. Deepa Ram and Smt. Anju Devi - petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 9 respectively, have been rejected, qua Mr. Ramesh Chandra Meena, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Mr. Regar Jasraj, Mr. Chotha Ram Kumar and Mr. Nawab Shrif - petitioners Nos. 3, 7, 8, 10 & 11 respectively, deficiencies have been pointed out and Mr. Bhanwara Ram, Smt. Vimla and Smt. Imrati Devi - petitioners No. 4, 5 and 6 respectively, have been accorded appointment. 6. In view of the above fact situation, wherein pursuant to the selections by way of draw of lots now the petitioners have been accorded appointed / their candidature have been rejected by the respondents and/or deficiencies have been pointed out in their forms, no further directions are required to be issued in the present case. 7. 6. In view of the above fact situation, wherein pursuant to the selections by way of draw of lots now the petitioners have been accorded appointed / their candidature have been rejected by the respondents and/or deficiencies have been pointed out in their forms, no further directions are required to be issued in the present case. 7. In cases, where deficiencies have been pointed out and the petitioners have removed the same, the respondents would take steps for considering the removal and pass appropriate orders. Needful may be done within a period of two weeks from today. 8. Insofar as, the petitioners whose candidature have been rejected by the respondents they would be free to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law qua the rejection of their candidature. 9. With the above observations and directions, the petitions filed by the petitioners stand disposed of.