KAILASH CHANDRA MEENA Vs. STATE
LAWS(RAJ)-2010-4-60
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on April 12,2010

OM PRAKASH,SATISH KUMAR,SAVITA KUMARI,PARAS RAM,CHAMPA LAL,BHERU SINGH,ROHIT KUMAR,GAJENDRA KUMAR,GOPAL RAM,TEJA RAM,DURGA SHANKAR,KAILASH CHANDRA MEENA,MOHAN LAL MEGHWAL,BHIM SINGH RAJPUT,VAINOOR,SUKH PAL SINGH,NOOR MOHD.,SUGNA RAM DEWASI,RAMSUKH BEDA,HANUMANA RAM,PREM LATA JOSHI,DILIP KUMAR DHOLI,MOHD. RAZZAQ SHEIKH,BABU LAL ACHARIYA,BUDHA RAM CHOUDHARY,SOM PRAKASH CHHABRA,DHANESHWARI JOSHI,NARESH KUMAR RAO,LAXMI DASHORA,DEV KANYA,SUMITRA SUKHWAL Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) 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.
(2.) Learned counsel for the State submitted that there are 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.
(3.) 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.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.