I.S.ISRANI
Purushottam Lal – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
2. It is submitted by Mr. G.S. Fauzdar, learned counsel, that an advertisement (Ann. 3) was published on 7.9.90 by respondent No. 1, inviting applications for training in the Lab. Technician Training Course. It is further submitted that the petitioner possessed all the required qualifications and applied to be selected for District Bharatpur. However, when the merit list was published, the name of the petitioner was not mentioned therein, even though, he obtained 57.5% marks. Respondent No. 4, whose name appeared at S. No. 14, was selected even though, he had only 53.7% marks. The petitioner was not selected, as is evident from the return filed by the respondents, since his certificate of residence is alleged to be forged and that he was not bona fide resident of village Gunsara, Tehsil Kumher, District Bharatpur. It is pointed out that alongwith rejoinder, Anx. RJ/1 Ration Card of 1977 & Anx. RJ/2 Ration Card of 1980, were filed, wherein the name of the pet
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.