Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 801 (RAJ)

Ravi Kumar v. Jodhpur Muncipal Corporation

2023-04-10

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2023
JUDGMENT Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:- "A. By an appropriate writ, order or direction the Respondent may kindly be directed to grant appointment to the petitioner on the post of Safai Karamachari in pursuance to the appointment order dated 01.09.2018 (Annex.02) with all consequential benefits. B. By an appropriate writ, order or direction the Respondent may kindly be directed to consider the case of petitioner for appointment on the post of Safai Karamachari as given to one Arif Khan S/o Sadik Khan on 25.02.2022 (Annex.08) with all consequential benefits. C. By an appropriate writ, order or direction the rejection order dated 29.03.2019 (Annex.04) may kindly be quashed & set aside." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance of the advertisement issued on 13.04.2018 for direct recruitment on the post of Safai Karamachari, the petitioner submitted his application along with the requisite documents. However, the respondents after considering the same, rejected his candidature vide order dated 29.03.2019 (Annex.4). The candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he does not hold the requisite experience for the post in view of the experience certificate produced by him along with the requisite documents. 4. The present writ petition has been filed on the ground that one person namely Arif Khan, who was similarly situated to the petitioner has been granted appointment vide order dated 25.02.2022 and, therefore, he submits that the case of the petitioner may also be reconsidered by the respondents. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has filed reply and submitted that the case of Arif Khan stands on a totally different footing and the reasons for reconsideration of the case have been provided in the detailed order passed by the respondents on 25.02.2022. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has approached this Court after a delay of more than 4 years without showing any reasonable or plausible explanation. He also submits that even on reconsideration of the case of the petitioner, there will be no change as the experience certificate issued by him, which is placed on record as Annex.R/1 clearly shows that he holds the experience of only one month whereas the requirement as per the advertisement is of one year. He also submits that even on reconsideration of the case of the petitioner, there will be no change as the experience certificate issued by him, which is placed on record as Annex.R/1 clearly shows that he holds the experience of only one month whereas the requirement as per the advertisement is of one year. He, therefore, prays that it will be a futile experience to reconsider the matter of the petitioner as the result of the same will not be changed in the present set of facts. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition filed by the petitioner may be dismissed. 6. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the relevant record of the case. 7. The admitted position in the case is that the petitioner applied for the post of Safai Karamachari in pursuance of the advertisement dated 13.04.2018 and the candidature of the petitioner was considered along with the other persons. While considering the candidature of the petitioner, requisite documents submitted by him were also taken into consideration and after consideration of the case of the petitioner, his candidature was not considered favourably as the petitioner lacks the experience. 8. Since the experience certificate of the petitioner Annex.R/1 dated 05.05.2018 clearly shows that he had a work experience of only one month whereas the requirement is the work experience of one year, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, even reconsideration of the case of the petitioner will not bear any different result. As far as the case of Arif Khan is concerned in the order dated 25.02.2022, the respondents have submitted that the matter was referred to the higher authorities for appropriate direction in case the pendency of criminal cases against a candidate is there. The higher authorities have given the guidelines to the respondents located at Jodhpur and, therefore, the case of Arif Khan was reconsidered and found him meritorious and fit for appointment. Therefore, in these circumstances, the case of Arif Khan stands on a totally different footing than the petitioner. 9. Merely, the appointment granted to Arif Khan will not give any benefit to the petitioner for re-agitating the grievance by filing a writ petition before this Court. The petitioner has to submit his case on his own facts and if it merits consideration, the same can be entertained by this Court. 10. 9. Merely, the appointment granted to Arif Khan will not give any benefit to the petitioner for re-agitating the grievance by filing a writ petition before this Court. The petitioner has to submit his case on his own facts and if it merits consideration, the same can be entertained by this Court. 10. In view of the discussion made above, the writ petition lacks merit and the same is, therefore, dismissed.