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

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Appellant
Versus
JAHEER AHAMAD SON OF SHRI FATEH MOHAMMED – Respondent
SAW 265/2021



HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 265/2021

In

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14992/2020

1.

The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director General Of

Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2.

Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Rajasthan,

Jaipur.

----Appellants-Respondents

Versus

Jaheer Ahamad Son Of Shri Fateh Mohammed, Aged About 29

Years, Resident Of Village Post Jajaud, Tehsil Laxmangarh, Sikar.

----Respondent-Writ Petitioner

Connected With

D.B. Civil Misc. Application No. 1/2021

In

D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 253/2021

In

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14992/2020

1.

Pushpendra Tiwari, S/o Girraj Tiwari, Aged About 23

Years, R/o Pradhano Ka Mohalla, Phagi, Jaipur.

2.

Jitendra Kuri, S/o Kanaram Kuri, Aged About 27 Years,

R/o Dhani Kuriyo Ki, VPO Pachlangi, Tehsil Udaipurwati,

Jhunjhunu.

3.

Rohitash Nitharwal, S/o Madanlal Nitharwal, Aged About

23 Years, R/o Village Gidawala, Post Office Simarla, Tehsil

Shri Madhopur, Sikar.

4.

Deepesh Verma, S/o Ramavtar Verma, Aged About 24

Years, R/o B-101, Bank Colony, Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur.

5.

Satish Kumar Meena, S/o Pooran Singh, Aged About 28

Years, R/o Village Bahrare Khparel, PO Andhiyari, Tehsil

Roopwas, District Bharatpur.

6.

Parmeshwar Lal Bhamoo, S/o Purn Singh Bhamoo, Aged

About 27 Years, R/o Vpo Bhairupura, Tehsil Dhod, Sikar.

7.

Ashish Dhabas, S/o Chhitar Mal Dhabas, Aged About 21

Years, R/o Village Thikariya, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, Sikar.

(2 of 10)

[SAW-265/2021]

8.

Brajmohan Sharma, S/o Ramavtar Sharma, Aged About

23 Years, R/o Vpo Thenpura, Tehsil Malpura, Tonk.

9.

Ghanshyam Jhakar, S/o Vijaylal Jat, Aged About 22 Years,

R/o Ramdh, PO Dangarthal, Tehsil Newai.

10.

Deshraj Tetarwal, S/o Maliram Tetarwal, Aged About 22

Years, R/o Dhani Nayanagar, (Nawodi)PO-Govindpura,

Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, Sikar.

----Appellants-Applicants

Versus

1.

Jaheer Ahamad, S/o Fateh Mohammad, Aged About 29

Years, R/o Gram Post Jajod, Tehsil Lakshmangarh, Sikar.

2.

State Of Rajasthan, Through Director General Of Police,

Rajasthan, Police Headquarters, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3.

Inspector General (Recruitment), Rajasthan, Jaipur.

----Respondents

For Appellant(s)

For Applicant(s)

:

:

Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Advocate General

with Mr. Sheetanshu Sharma,

Advocate through video conferencing

Mr. Ashish Davessar, Advocate with

Mr. Parmeshwar Lal Pilania, Advocate

through video conferencing

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Ajaj Nabee, Advocate through

video conferencing

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR VYAS

Order

24/05/2021

Appellant-State has filed the appeal challenging the

order dated 24.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge,

whereby, writ petition filed by the respondent Jaheer Ahamad, was

allowed.

Some of the affected candidates have also filed

application for grant of leave to file an appeal against the order

dated 24.02.2021.

(3 of 10)

[SAW-265/2021]

Both the cases are taken up together for discussion as

challenge in both the cases is the order dated 24.02.2021 passed

by the learned Single Judge.

Respondent- writ petitioner had applied for the post of

Constable (Driver) in pursuance to the advertisement dated

04.12.2019 issued by the Director General of Police, Rajasthan,

Jaipur inviting applications for the post of Constable and Constable

(Driver). Respondent- writ petitioner by filing the writ petition

urged that the State be directed to strictly follow the procedure

laid down under the standing orders and Rajasthan Police

Subordinate Service Rules, 1989. It was the case of the

respondent- writ petitioner that the procedure followed by the

State for making the recruitment was contrary to the standing

orders and the rules. Written examination had been conducted

jointly all over the State and the merit list of written examination

was common, but thereafter State had prepared separate cut-off

for each district and after

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top