Anil Kumar Vs. State - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
constitution of india - articles 14, 16 & 226--ban imposed on 6.6.1990 and appointment order could not be issued--t junior in list appointed--held, petitioner be also appointed and (ii) seniority of petitioner over t be assigned.;it is an admitted position that ban had been imposed on appointment on 6th june, 1990 and this is why an appointment order with regard to the petitioner could not be issued;i, therefore, in the circumstances of the case direct the respondent state to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner;period of ban shall not come in the way of reckoning the seniority of the petitioner and he shall be assigned seniority above tara chand who was just below the petitioner.;writ allowed - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - 2 which satisfied the rajasthan public service commission, it appears that r.r.s. verma, j.1. heard the learned counsel for the parties. the petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that respondent, rajasthan public service commission be directed to forward the name of the petitioner for appointment being given to the post of lower division clerk in nagaur district or for that matter anywhere also where the petitioner can be appointed and further direction be made for appointment being given to the petitioner on and from the date shri tara chand was so appointed with all benefits consequential there to such as emoluments, seniority etc.2. the petitioner appeared in 'kanisth lipik sanyukt pratiyogi examination 1986 held by the rajasthan public service commission. his name was included in reserve list for district nagaur. however, the petitioner's name was not forwarded to the r.p.s.c. to the government because there was some deficiency in his form. the rajasthan public service commission asked the petitioner to remove deficiency by issuing letter annex. 1. this deficiency was removed by him by filing an affidavit annex. 2 which satisfied the rajasthan public service commission, it appears that r.p.s.c. duly cleared the name of the petitioner on 3rd may, 1990 and forwarded the name of the petitioner for appointment to the state government on 22.5.1990. it appears that before appointment order could be issued in favour of the petitioners, a ban was imposed on appointments by the state government osn 6.6.90. the result was that the petitioner could not be appointed in sapite of the fact that his name was included in the reserve list and the name of the petitioner had been cleared.3. separate returns have been filed by r.p.s.c. and by the state government. the position stated above has not been controverted by the respondents. it is an admitted position that ban had been imposed on appointment on 6th june, 1990 and this is why an appointment order with regard to the petitioner could not be issued.4. the case of the petitioner is that person junior to him namely tara chand was appointed. the petitioner prays that respondent state may be directed to appointment him from the very date his junior tara chand was appointed with consequential benefits. learned council for the petitioner has in this connection relied upon judgment rendered in s.b. civil writ petition no. 1034/90 sawar mat stmrma v. state of raj. and ors. decided on 1.4.1991. state has not been able to show now the paper of the petitioner differs from the case of sawar mal in any material particular.5. i have perused the judgment rendered in sawar mal's case. i find that judgment equarely applies to the present case also. i, therefore, in the circumstances of the case direct the respondent state to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner in nagaur district or in such other district in which he may be eligible to be appointed, keeping in view, the judgment, endered by this court in d.b. civil special appeal no. 108/91 decided on 18.4.91. however, it is clarified that period of ban shall not come in the way of reckoning the seniority of the petitioner and he shall be assigned seniority above tara chand who was just below the petitioner. the writ petition is disposed of accordingly.