1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :::: JUDGMENT 1 SBCWP No. 5657/2008 SHAKTI SINGH YADAV Vs. STATE & ORS 2 SBCWP No. 5658/2008 RAMESHWAR LAL Vs. STATE & ORS 3 SBCWP No. 5768/2008 BABU SINGH Vs. STATE & ORS 4 SBCWP No. 6027/2008 KAMAL SINGH GURANG Vs. STATE & ORS 5 SBCWP No06246/2008 BAL KISHANA VYAS Vs. STATE & ORS 6 SBCWP No. 6531/2008 MEGHA RAM Vs. STATE & ORS 7 SBCWP No. 6605/2008 MAHENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE & ORS 8 SBCWP No. 6673/2008 HANUMAN DAS Vs. STATE & ORS 9 SBCWP No. 6687/2008 MOHABBAT SINGH Vs. STATE & ORS 10 SBCWP No. 6748/2008 SHAKTIDHAR Vs. STATE & ORS 11 SBCWP No. 6750/2008 RANJEET SINGH Vs. STATE & ORS 12 SBCWP No. 6751/2008 DHARMARAM Vs. STATE & ORS 13 SBCWP No. 6767/2008 SURENDRA BISHNOI Vs. STATE & ORS 14 SBCWP No. 6796/2008 KALLA CHANDRA KANT Vs. STATE & ORS 15 SBCWP No. 6800/2008 PAWAN KUMAR Vs. STATE & ORS 16 SBCWP No. 6801/2008 JALAM SINGH Vs. STATE & ORS 17 SBCWP No. 6802/2008 SAROJ SARAN Vs. STATE & ORS 18 SBCWP No. 6807/2008 SMT. SHARMISTHA BHATT Vs. STATE & ORS 19 SBCWP No. 6829/2008 SMT. SUDHA JOSHI Vs. STATE & ORS 20 SBCWP No. 6857/2008 PANNA LAL KUMAWAT Vs. STATE & ORS 2 21 SBCWP No. 6860/2008 SUNITA GURJAR Vs. STATE & ORS 22 SBCWP No. 6863/2008 RAMESH KUMAR KATARIYA Vs. STATE & ORS 23 SBCWP No. 6865/2008 BANWARILAL Vs. STATE & ORS 24 SBCWP No. 7004/2008 SHREE KISHAN BANA Vs. STATE & ORS 25 SBCWP No. 7107/2008 RAJESH KUMAR Vs. STATE & ORS 26 SBCWP No. 7520/2008 SHIV DUTT KAVIA Vs. STATE & ORS 27 SBCWP No. 8090/2008 ONKAR SINGH SHAKTAWAT Vs. STATE & ORS 28 SBCWP No. 8091/2008 GHANSHYAM SHARMA Vs. STATE & ORS 29 SBCWP No. 8092/2008 BHAWANA SHARMA Vs. STATE & ORS 30 SBCWP No. 8121/2008 DHIRENDRA SINGH & ORS Vs. STATE & ORS 31 SBCWP No. 8157/2008 LAL SINGH SHAKTAWAT Vs. STATE & ORS 32 SBCWP No. 8167/2008 BAHADUR SINGH RAO Vs. STATE & ORS 33 SBCWP No. 8168/2008 VINOD KUMAR SUTHAR Vs. STATE & ORS 34 SBCWP No. 8259/2008 ANITA KANWAR & ORS Vs. STATE & ORS 35 SBCWP No. 8268/2008 SHAMBHU DAN CHARAN & ORS Vs. STATE & ORS 36 SBCWP No. 8410/2008 PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. STATE & ORS 37 SBCWP No. 8573/2008 BHANWAR LAL BISHNOI & ANR Vs. STATE & ORS 38 SBCWP No. 8593/2008 SUMAN RANI Vs. STATE & ORS 39 SBCWP No. 8600/2008 UPENDRA KUMAR CHOBISA Vs. STATE & ORS 40 SBCWP No. 9106/2008 RAMAVTAR SINGH Vs. STATE & ORS 41 SBCWP No. 9217/2008 OMA RAM Vs. STATE & ORS 42 SBCWP No. 9774/2008 CHETNA SHARMA Vs. STATE & ORS 43 SBCWP No. 9797/2008 SMT. MANJU VERMA Vs. STATE & ORS 3 44 SBCWP No10009/2008 SMT. BHARTI TALWADIYA & ANR. Vs. STATE & ORS 45 SBCWP No. 334/2009 SIYA RAM SHARMA & ORS Vs. STATE & ORS 46 SBCWP No. 1121/2010 DHARM PAL Vs. STATE & ORS 47 SBCWP No. 1753/2009 DILIP KUMAR DAVE Vs. STATE & ORS 48 SBCWP No. 2273/2009 ROOPA RAM MEGHWAL Vs. STATE & ORS 49 SBCWP No. 3118/2009 SAROJ SHEORAN Vs. STATE & ORS 50 SBCWP No. 4635/2009 YUNISH CHHIPA Vs. STATE & ORS 51 SBCWP No. 1148/2010 ROOPLAL DANGI Vs. STATE & ORS 52 SBCWP No. 6291/2009 SHIV NARAYAN DHAKA Vs. STATE & ORS 53 SBCWP No. 6478/2009 DILIP KUMAR CHAHAR Vs. STATE & ORS 54 SBCWP No. 8664/2009 VITTHAL DAS Vs. STATE & ORS 55 SBCWP No. 9083/2009 MANGLA RAM Vs. STATE & ORS 56 SBCWP No. 172/2010 KESHAR SINGH MEENA Vs. STATE & ORS 57 SBCWP No. 173/2010 KALVA RAM MEENA Vs. STATE & ORS 58 SBCWP No. 404/2010 DINESH KUMAR Vs. STATE & ORS 59 SBCWP No. 752/2010 SMT. SUNITA SINGH RATHORE & ORS Vs. STATE & ORS 60 SBCWP No11300/2009 SHRINIWAS MEENA Vs. STATE & ORS 61 SBCWP No11284/2009 CHIMNA RAM Vs. STATE & ORS 62 SBCWP No. 1147/2009 SMT. ROOPESH KUMARI & ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS 63 SBCWP No. 1089/2010 HADMAN RAM Vs. STATE & ORS 64 SBCWP No. 1141/2010 KULDEEP JOSHI Vs. STATE & ORS 65 SBCWP No. 1096/2010 SHARAVAN KUMAR Vs. STATE & ORS 66 SBCWP No. 6776/2008 RAMESH CHANDRA Vs. STATE & ORS 4 67 SBCWP No. 1092/2010 PRAKASH CHAND Vs. STATE & ORS 68 SBCWP No. 1142/2010 SMT. KAVITA Vs. STATE & ORS 69 SBCWP No. 1153/2010 MAHENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE & ORS 70 SBCWP No. 1154/2010 SURENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE & ORS 71 SBCWP No. 357/2010 NARESH PRAJAPAT Vs. STATE & ORS 72 SBCWP No. 1124/2010 MANISH KUMAR DOSI & ORS Vs. STATE & ORS 73 SBCWP No10686/2009 SMT. MANINDER KAUR Vs. STATE & ORS 74 SBCWP No10834/2009 SMT. RITA RANI Vs. STATE & ORS 75 SBCWP No10909/2009 RAMSWROOP Vs. STATE & ORS 77 SBCWP No10910/2009 SMT. HEERA SHARMA Vs. STATE & ORS 78 SBCWP No10911/2009 PRITHVI RAJ PUNIA Vs. STATE & ORS 79 SBCWP No10912/2009 HANUMANRAM Vs. STATE & ORS 80 SBCWP No10914/2009 GURPAL SINGH Vs. STATE & ORS 81 SBCWP No. 921/2010 RAJENDRA KUMAR BHADU & ORS Vs. STATE & ORS 82 SBCWP No.664/2010 RAMESH KU. SOLANKI Vs. STATE & ORS 83 SBCWP No.662/2010 RAJENDRA KUMAR PARIHAR Vs. STATE & ORS 84 SBCWP No.5100/2008 DAULAT KHAN KAYAMKHANI Vs. STATE & ORS 85 SBCWP No.6882/2008 JITENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE & ORS 86 SBCWP No.6883/2008 SURENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE & ORS 87 SBCWP No. 6987/2008 PARVEZ KHAN Vs. STATE & ORS 88 SBCWP No.6991/2008 ABDUL RAZIQUE Vs. STATE & ORS 89 SBCWP No.7011/2008 SMT. SAROJ DEVI Vs. STATE & ORS 90 SBCWP No.7059/2008 SURENDRA PAL Vs. STATE & ORS 5 91 SBCWP No.9985/2008 MS. REENA PANDIYA Vs. STATE & ORS Date of Order dated 8.2.2010 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. S/Sh. RS Choudhary, HS Sidhu, JS Bhalariya, Vinod Purohit, Vinit Dave, JR Chawel, SS Gaur, Vikas Bijarniya, SS Gaur, VR Bishnoi, Bhagirath Bishnoi, Mukesh Rajpurohit, Deepak Bohra, Bhawani Singh, PR Mehta, Aruna Negi, Arjun Purohit, DS Gaur, Ramesh Purohit, BN Kalla, VN Kalla, Kuleep Mathur, DS Sodha, Anish Ahemd, Hemant Balani, Rakesh Arora, Mahaveer Bishnoi, Manish Tak, Sachin Acharya, Pramila Acharya, HS Sandhu, BS Sandu, DS Gharsana, Manoj Joshi, Sanjeet Purohit, Sajjan Singh, JK Bhaiya, Narendra Singh, Rameshwar Dave, OP Bishnoi, PS Bhati, RS Shekhawat, JP Swami, AD Charan, VK Sharma, MS Godara, SK Puniya, Ravindra Paliwal, Parikshit Nayak, MA Saddiqui, Mahesh Thanvi, Jaidev Singh Bhai and PS Chundawat, for the petitioners. Mr.RL Jangid, Addl. Advocate General with Mr.Rajesh Bhati and Mr.Nimesh Suthar for the respondent-State. <><><> Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the controversy involved in these writ petitions has already been decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 27.1.2010 delivered in SBCWP No.8497/2008 – Manglaram & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. which was decided with other connected writ petitions. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the present writ petitions may also be decided in the light of the decision dated 27.1.2010 and same directions may be issued. Learned counsel for the State submitted that there are 6 several objections which are (i) the person who gave birth to child after cut off date and who had two children already is not an eligible candidate, (ii) some of the candidates were lacking experience, (iii) some of the candidates were over age and (iv) some of the candidates claimed benefit on the basis of their experience of working as Prerak. So far as other cases are concerned, the similar directions can be issued in the light of the decision given in judgment dated 27.1.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in fact there is no necessity to go into all above objections in view of the direction no.2 given by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 27.1.2010, which clearly provides that those petitioners who are not found to be eligible for any other reason then reasons may be assigned and be communicated to each of the petitioner so that if he feels aggrieved, he may avail the remedy under the law obviously for redressal of his grievance. It is also submitted that for completion of process three month's time has already been granted by the order of this court dated 27.1.2010. Therefore, all these writ petitions may also be disposed of wherein the above objections of State are there. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and in view of the fact that this court has already decided the controversy and issued directions to the respondents, therefore, these writ petitions are also 7 disposed of in terms of the said judgment dated 27.1.2010 and it is made clear that the State Government's any plea that candidature was rejected on the ground of birth of child after cut off date to a candidate who had two children already, the candidature was rejected on the ground of lack of experience required, the candidate was over age and the candidate could not have been given relief because the experience gained while serving as Prerak is not fulfilling the requisite qualification for the appointment to the post of Prabodak are also the reasons already included in the directions issued by this Court in judgment dated 27.1.2010 in second direction. Therefore and otherwise also, there is no reason to deny opportunity to the petitioners for submitting their representation with respect to any objection referred above also so that their objection can be decided by the respondents in accordance with rules applicable for the purpose of giving appointment on the post of Prabodak. In view of the above reasons, these writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the following directions and it is made clear that the petitioners will be free to submit their representation within a period of two week's time so that the entire exercise may be completed within the time granted by the judgment dated 27.1.2010: “(i) Respondents are directed to first prepare list of writ petitioners whose applications were received by the respondents in respective 8 districts, and who were not called for interview for the reasons that there was summer break resulting in discontinuance of experience for five years, or experience certificate has not been verified, may be called for interview and this exercise be completed within two months; and simultaneously, petitioners may also contact the office of the concerned authority; and (ii) such of petitioners who are not found to be eligible for any other reason, may be assigned and communicated to each of them, to which if he feels aggrieved, will be free to avail of remedy under the law. (iii) After completion of exercise referred to in para (i) &(ii) (supra), further process be initiated for finalizing merit list of respective districts and such petitioners may be considered for appointment if find place in order of merit in their respective district against advertised vacancies including those duly revised by subsequent corrigendum to advertisement dated 31.5.2008, within a period of three months thereafter in accordance with Rules, 2008 and in the light of judgments of this court (supra). [PRAKASH TATIA], J. mlt/s.phophalia/cpgoyal 9 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. Date of Order dated 8.2.2010 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. S/Sh. RS Choudhary, HS Sidhu, JS Bhalariya, Vinod Purohit, Vinit Dave, JR Chawel, SS Gaur, Vikas Bijarniya, SS Gaur, VR Bishnoi, Bhagirath Bishnoi, Mukesh Rajpurohit, Deepak Bohra, Bhawani Singh, PR Mehta, Aruna Negi, Arjun Purohit, DS Gaur, Ramesh Purohit, BN Kalla, VN Kalla, Kuleep Mathur, DS Sodha, Anish Ahemd, Hemant Balani, Rakesh Arora, Mahaveer Bishnoi, Manish Tak, Sachin Acharya, Pramila Acharya, HS Sandhu, BS Sandu, DS Gharsana, Manoj Joshi, Sanjeet Purohit, Sajjan Singh, JK Bhaiya, Narendra Singh, Rameshwar Dave, OP Bishnoi, PS Bhati, RS Shekhawat, JP Swami, AD Charan, VK Sharma, MS Godara, SK Puniya, Ravindra Paliwal, Parikshit Nayak, MA Saddiqui, Mahesh Thanvi, Jaidev Singh Bhai and PS Chundawat, for the petitioners. Mr.RL Jangid, Addl. Advocate General with Mr.Rajesh Bhati and Mr.Nimesh Suthar for the respondent-State. <><><> This writ petition is disposed of. [see separate judgment in SBCWP No. 5657/2008- Shakti Singh Yadav Vs. State of Raj. & Ors., decided today itself, i.e., 8.2.2010. By order Court Master.