SANDEEP MEHTA, REKHA BORANA
Govind Ram Jakhar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Rekha Borana,J. - The present special appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 18.08.2021 whereby the writ petition of the petitioners/appellants was dismissed.
2. Before adverting into the adjudication of the matter, above question, entailing of the brief facts would be relevant :
3. An advertisement for 178 posts of 'Driver-cum-Fire Machine Operator' was issued by the Rajasthan Municipalities (Administrative & Technical) and (Subordinate & Technical) and (Subordinate & Ministerial) Service Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Service Board') on 30.12.2015, out of which 22 posts were reserved for ex-servicemen. Because of certain litigation pertaining to the recruitment in question, a fresh advertisement was issued on 03.06.2019 and in the said advertisement, no post for ex-servicemen was reserved. The said reservation was denied on the ground that notification dated 10.10.2008 had been issued by the State whereby the expression "Driver" in item no.33 of the Schedule-I of the Rules of 1988, by virtue of which, earlier reservation was provided on the post of "Driver", was deleted. Instruction no.6 of the fresh advertisement (impugned notification)
A.B. Krishna and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others; (1998) 3 SCC 495
Maya Mathew v. State of Kerala and Others
State of U.P. and Another v. Anil Kumar Bharti 2015 (6) ADJ 306(DB)
Vijay Singh and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others; 2005 (2) AWC 1191
The benefit of reservation provided to ex-servicemen in the advertisement of 2015 could not have been withdrawn in 2019. The Rules of 1963 would prevail over the Rules of 1988.
The court established that the specific provisions of the Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service Rules, 2015, which apply uniform physical efficiency standards to all candidates, take precedence over t....
Eligibility criteria for Ex-servicemen in recruitment must align with statutory rules; arbitrary conditions imposed by executive instructions are unlawful.
The amendments to the rules did not affect the petitioner's seniority, and the claim for parity in terms of seniority between the petitioner and Assessors was rejected based on the different cadres a....
(1) Appointment – Even if relevant rules permit competent authority to set benchmarks at different stages of recruitment process, same must be done at any time before relevant stage is reached.(2) Ap....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.