Jagdish Vs. State and ors

Jagdish vs State and ors

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Jodhpur Decided May 28, 2014

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1142419

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1142419
Court: Rajasthan Jodhpur High Court
Decided On: May 28, 2014
Subject: Right to Information

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Right to Information

Key legal issue: Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jagdish

Respondent

State and ors

Excerpt

.....official. the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no reason s.b.civil writ petition no.8803/2013 jagdish v/s state of rajasthan and ors.order dt: 28/5/2014 2/2 in not offering the petitioner to the petitioner. 3. the learned counsel for the respondents does not appear, though the name of mr.rajesh panwar, aag is shown in the cause list. 4. in these circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty and direction to the petitioner to approach the superintendent of police, hanumangarh who will pass appropriate speaking order in this regard as to why his case was ignored for appointment as constable in the said selection process. it is only after and if any advers.order is passed against him that the petitioner will be free to avail appropriate legal remedy in accordance with law. the representation of the petitioner may be decided preferably after giving an opportunity of hearing to him within a period of three months from today and if he is otherwise eligible and entitled, he may be offered such appointment. no order as to costs. a copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned forthwith. (dr. vineet kothari).j. ss/- 28,

Full Judgment

S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.8803/2013 Jagdish V/s State of Rajasthan and ORS.Order dt: 28/5/2014 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER

S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.8803/2013 Jagdish V/s State of Rajasthan and ORS.Date of Order ::: 28th May, 2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Dr.

JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.R.S.Saluja, for the petitioner.

None present for the respondents.

--- BY THE COURT: 1.

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking appointment on the post of Police Constable.

In pursuance of the information given to the petitioner under the RTI Act vide annex.4 dtd.22.5.2013, according to the petitioner his total marks obtained were more than the cut off marks and the persons lower in merit than the petitioners were given appointment as Constable in SC category in the selection process held in the year 2012, but the petitioner was ignored and in the foot note of Annex.4 dtd.22.5.2013, information supplied by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Hanumangarh, the Superintendent of Police has asked for explanation of the concerned official.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no reason S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.8803/2013 Jagdish V/s State of Rajasthan and ORS.Order dt: 28/5/2014 2/2 in not offering the petitioner to the petitioner.

The learned counsel for the respondents does not appear, though the name of Mr.Rajesh Panwar, AAG is shown in the cause list.

In these circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty and direction to the petitioner to approach the Superintendent of Police, Hanumangarh who will pass appropriate speaking order in this regard as to why his case was ignored for appointment as constable in the said selection process.

It is only after and if any adveRs.order is passed against him that the petitioner will be free to avail appropriate legal remedy in accordance with law.

The representation of the petitioner may be decided preferably after giving an opportunity of hearing to him within a period of three months from today and if he is otherwise eligible and entitled, he may be offered such appointment.

No order as to costs.

A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned forthwith.

(Dr.

VINEET KOTHARI).J.

ss/- 28,

Same Court & Year Rajasthan Jodhpur · 2014 Same Parties Jagdish vs State and ors Same Subject Right to Information