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.

Arjun Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Arjun Singh vs State of Rajasthan and ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Rajasthan Decided Jul 05, 2010
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/850902

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 High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Service
Disposition
Petition dismissed

Case Summary

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

-

Key legal issue
Service
Outcome / disposition
Petition dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Arjun Singh

Respondent

State of Rajasthan and ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred
Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar and Anr.

Excerpt

- .....to be considered for the post of prabodhak. the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the decision of the hon'ble supreme court in the case of ashok kumar sharma v. chander shekhar and anr. reported in : 1993 supp. (2) scc 611 submitted that the qualification on the date of interview should be taken into account by the respondent - authorities as it was considered in better public interest to widen the choice of selection in the said manner.4. from the perusal of para 5 and the impugned order annex.2 dtd. 31.5.2010, it does not appear to this court that the petitioner ever informed formally or with some documents the respondents - authorities about the factum of his having passed the said eligibility qualification of bstc in the year 2009. mere acquiring of said qualification even if it was to be true unless brought to the notice of the respondents, the respondents authorities cannot be faulted in passing the impugned order annex.2 on 31.5.2010 rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible as per the information given in the application filed in the year 2008. para 5 does not specifically state that the petitioner brought it to the notice of the respondents that he has acquired the qualification of bstc before the earlier round of interview held on 19.2.2010.5. consequently, this court is of the view that this writ petition as has been framed cannot succeed. accordingly the present writ petition is dismissed. no order as to costs. a copy of this order be sent to the respondents immediately.

Full Judgment

Vineet Kothari, J.

1. Heard the learned Counsel.

2. By Annex.2, candidature of the petitioner in the selection process of Prabodhak was rejected on the ground vide item No. 8 in the impugned order that he does not hold the prescribed qualification of BSTC.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he the same on 5.7.2009. The interview for selection on the post of Prabodhak were first held, according to the petitioner in para 5, on 19.2.2010 and again on 29.6.2010. The petitioner further stated in para 5 that 'the petitioner acquired the qualification of BSTC at the time of interview and therefore, he was eligible to be considered for the post of Prabodhak. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar and Anr. reported in : 1993 Supp. (2) SCC 611 submitted that the qualification on the date of interview should be taken into account by the respondent - authorities as it was considered in better public interest to widen the choice of selection in the said manner.

4. From the perusal of para 5 and the impugned order Annex.2 dtd. 31.5.2010, it does not appear to this Court that the petitioner ever informed formally or with some documents the respondents - authorities about the factum of his having passed the said eligibility qualification of BSTC in the year 2009. Mere acquiring of said qualification even if it was to be true unless brought to the notice of the respondents, the respondents authorities cannot be faulted in passing the impugned order Annex.2 on 31.5.2010 rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible as per the information given in the application filed in the year 2008. Para 5 does not specifically state that the petitioner brought it to the notice of the respondents that he has acquired the qualification of BSTC before the earlier round of interview held on 19.2.2010.

5. Consequently, this Court is of the view that this writ petition as has been framed cannot succeed. Accordingly the present writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the respondents immediately.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial