REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

RAJENDRA SUREKHA (DR.) Appellant

V/S

STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

M.P.AGARWAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. [REFERRED TO]
H.K. HINGARANI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. [REFERRED TO]
YOGESH CHOUDHARY VS. RPSC [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN COUNCIL OF DIPLOMA ENGINEERS VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. [REFERRED TO]
KUMARI LUNI JOGESH VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
ROOP KUMARI VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
PRATAP SINGH VS. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR [REFERRED TO]
GHANSHYAM NAGAR VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
DR. RAJESH SHARMA & ANR. VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. [REFERRED TO]
P CHITHARANJA MENON VS. A BALAKRISHNAN [REFERRED TO]
SHANKARSAN DASH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
REKHA CHATURVEDI VS. UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
J AND K PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION VS. NARINDER MOHAN [REFERRED TO]
U P PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION U P ALLAHABAD VS. ALPANA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. YOGENDRA SINGH [REFERRED TO]
HARPAL KAUR CHAHAL VS. DIRECTOR PUNJAB INSTRUCTIONS PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA OTHERS VS. CHANDER SHEKHAR ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. HITENDRA KUMAR BHATT [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. ANURAG SRIVASTAVA [REFERRED TO]
UTKAL UNIVERSITY VS. NRUSINGHA CHARAN SARANGI [REFERRED TO]
SUNEETA AGGARWAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
PABITRA MOHAN DASS VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
ALL INDIA SC AND ST EMPLOYEES ASSN VS. A ARTHUR JEEN [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA VS. DEOKAR DISTILLERY [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY SYAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH VS. U P PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [REFERRED TO]
LUDHIYANA CENTRAL CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED VS. AMRIK SINGH [REFERRED TO]
MOHD SARTAJ VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
SUDHIR JIWAN VS. RAJ STATE PUBLIC SERVICE [REFERRED TO]
EMARATA RAM POONIYA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the instant writ petition, the petitioner has initially challenged the selection of respondent No.3 & 4 (Dr. Sudhir Mehta & Dr. Rajiv Bagarhatta) against the vacancies of the year 1990-91 for the post of Lecturer in General Medicine and to direct the respondent Rajasthan Public Service Commission to accordingly amend the result of the selection of the year 1990-91. The petitioner has further sought consequential direction of appointment to the said post against the year 1990- 91 with seniority.

(2.) THE facts in brief of the case are that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition initially challenging the eligibility of Dr. Sudhir Mehta and Dr. Rajiv Bagarhatta (respondent No.3 & 4 in the original writ petition) on the ground that these two private respondents were not eligible for appointment against the vacancies of the year 1990-91 to the post of Lecturer (General Medicine) on account of not completing the post-graduation degree i.e. M.D. in General Medicine upto 1.4.1990. Subsequently, an application was filed on 8.5.2006 for deleting the names of Dr. Rajiv Bagarhatta - respondent No.4, Dr. S.K. Sharma - respondent No.5 and Dr. Shiv Charan Jelia - respondent o.6 and the same was allowed on 11st May, 2006 along with another application of adding Dr. Prakash Keshwani as party. Presently, the grievance of the petitioner is confined to Dr. Sudhir Mehta - Respondent No.3 of the writ petition. Dr. Sudhir Bhandari, who was originally respondent No.7 is now respondent No.4 and Dr. Prakash Keshwani is respondent No.5.

(3.) THE further case of the petitioner is that as per Rule 8A, 9, 12 read with Rule 24-A of the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules of 1962), the respondent Government and the RPSC are bound to determine the vacancies year-wise for direct recruitment and further make selection year-wise by taking the date of eligibility as 1st of April of the respective year of vacancy.

Click here to view full judgment.

RAJENDRA SUREKHA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address