SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(Raj) 2557

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Ajay Rastogi, J.
Dinesh Upadhyay - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1383 of 2009.
Decided On : 15-12-2009

Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Pushpendra Pal Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent Commission:Mr. S.N. Kumawat, Advocate.

Headnote:Constitution of India, Art. 16 and 226 – Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 – Petitioner name came in the merit list for post of teacher – however appointment was not considered – court directed respondent to consider the appointment of the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

1. - Petitioner applied for appointment to the post of Teacher (Primary & Upper Primary School) duly advertised vide notification dated 30/10/2006 under Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 ("Rules, 1996") and in the Teachers (Primary & Upper Primary School) Competitive Examination, 2006, he participated in process of selection initiated by respondent-RPSC; and was finally found to be suitable but was not appointed against number of vacancies available and advertised by the PSC.

2. Grievance of petitioner is that despite vacancies duly advertised being available with the respondents, and his name also finds place in the order of merit, but still has not been considered for appointment.

3. Counsel submits that issue raised in instant petition has been examined by this Court vide judgment dt.01/12/09 in CWP-4728/2008 & (6) others (Naveen Kr. Sharma & Ors. v. State & Ors ) whereby it has been directed ad infra:

"Consequently, all these writ petitions are disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider candidature of petitioners for appointment on the post of Teacher (Primary & Upper Primary Schools) on the basis of their selection made pursuant to advertisement dated 30/10/06 strictly in order of merit as per statement (supra) against available vacancies other than reserved for TSP area; and in case either of petitioners does not find place in order of merit in respective category for appointment, respondents shall inform each of them about his placement and reasons for which he could not be held eligible for appointment. Compliance be made within two months. No order as to costs."
It has not been disputed by the Counsel for respondents.

4. In the light of what has been observed (supra) in CWP-4728/08, this writ petition also stands disposed of. No order as to costs.Order accordingly.

*******


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top