Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Trilok Chand Vs. State and ors

Trilok Chand vs State and ors

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Jodhpur Decided Aug 11, 2014
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1161028

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Rajasthan Jodhpur High Court
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Trilok Chand

Advocate Mr. Rajendra Soni

Respondent

State and ors

Excerpt

.....with them. d. by an appropriate writ, order or direction,t he respondents may kindly be directed to keep one post vacant for the petitioner. e. any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this hon'ble court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. f. writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs.”. 3. the petitioner was not selected on the post of constable for the selection process initiated vide the advertisement (annex.1) for the year 2012. in the writ petition, the petitioner has submitted that his marks obtained were 57.9948 and he secured merit no.369, whereas the minimum cut of marks in the said category (sc), was 57.9988. thus, admittedly, the petitioner has secured lesser marks in the said selection but upon the comparison of answers from the s.b. civil writ petition no.13209/2013 trilok chand vs. state of rajasthan & ors. order dtd. 11/08/2014 3/3 answer-key on the official website of the respondents, particularly in relation to question no.21 part -a, series “a”., was wrongly provided by the respondents and rather there was no correct option for the said question. the petitioner has also filed a representation to the respondent no.4 i.e. superintendent of police, sri ganganagar, on 26.08.2013 but without awaiting the decision or response thereto, the petitioner has filed this writ petition on 24.10.2013.4. a reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents but no document disposing of the representation of the petitioner has been placed by the respondents on record.5. accordingly, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty and direction to the petitioner to first get his representation dated 26.08.2013 disposed of by the competent authority of the respondents, who are expected to pass appropriate speaking order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of.....

Full Judgment

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13209/2013 Trilok Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Order dtd. 11/08/2014 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13209/2013 Trilok Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. .. Date of Order ::::

11. h August, 2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Appearance: None present for the petitioner. None present for the respondents. -- BY THE COURT:

1. No counsel is present on behalf of petitioner or the respondents. The lawyers are observing strike, which is contrary to various Hon'ble Supreme Court decisions. Names of Mr. Rajendra Soni, counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Bissa, Addl. Govt. Counsel, are shown in the cause list. No Officer-in-Charge on behalf of resondent State is also present to argue on behalf of the State.

2. The petitioner in the present writ petition, which was filed by him on 24.10.2013, has sought following relief/s: - “It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed : - A. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned selection list dated 02/04/2013 (Annexure-1) may kindly be declared illegal, arbitrary, unjust and same may kindly be quashed and set aside. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13209/2013 Trilok Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Order dtd. 11/08/2014 2/3 B. By an appropriate writ, order or direction,t he respondents may kindly be directed to award more marks for the correct answer opted by him in the Examination held for the post of Constable 2012 of the petitioner and prepare the fresh selection list for appointment to the post of Constable. B/1. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to immediately correct result of the petitioner and issue revised merit list. C. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to declare the petitioner qualified and recruit the petitioner on the vacant post lying with them. D. By an appropriate writ, order or direction,t he respondents may kindly be directed to keep one post vacant for the petitioner. E. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. F. Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs.”. 3. The petitioner was not selected on the post of Constable for the selection process initiated vide the Advertisement (Annex.1) for the year 2012. In the writ petition, the petitioner has submitted that his marks obtained were 57.9948 and he secured Merit No.369, whereas the minimum cut of marks in the said category (SC), was 57.9988. Thus, admittedly, the petitioner has secured lesser marks in the said selection but upon the comparison of answers from the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13209/2013 Trilok Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Order dtd. 11/08/2014 3/3 answer-key on the official website of the respondents, particularly in relation to Question No.21 Part -A, Series “A”., was wrongly provided by the respondents and rather there was no correct option for the said question. The petitioner has also filed a representation to the respondent No.4 i.e. Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar, on 26.08.2013 but without awaiting the decision or response thereto, the petitioner has filed this writ petition on 24.10.2013.

4. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents but no document disposing of the representation of the petitioner has been placed by the respondents on record.

5. Accordingly, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty and direction to the petitioner to first get his representation dated 26.08.2013 disposed of by the competent authority of the respondents, who are expected to pass appropriate speaking order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of three months from today.

6. With these observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith. (Dr. VINEET KOTHARI), J.

DJ/- 43

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial