Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Rakesh Kumar Bishnoi vs The Comma. 10Th Battalion Rac Bkn And Ors … on 7 April, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:18089]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1933/2018
Rakesh Kumar Bishnoi S/o Shri Devi Lal, R/o Village 2 Tk, Tehsil
Raisingh Nagar, District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Commandant 10Th Battalion R.a.c. I.r., Bikaner
Rajasthan Through Its Commandant, Bikaner Rajasthan.
2. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Deputy Secretary, Home
Department Group-I, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Additional Director General Of Police, Police
Headquarter, Arms Battalion, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. The Superintendent Of Police, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : None present.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raj Singh Bhati for
Mr. Ritu Raj Singh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
07/04/2025
1. Petitioner herein, an aspirant to become a Cook pursuant to
an advertisement dated 15.11.2017 (Annex.2), inter-alia seeks an
appropriate writ, order and/or direction to recall the interview
selection process for the post in question and to call him for
interview.
2. When called out for hearing none appears for the petitioner.
It appears that by sheer passage of time, the nature of relief
sought by the petitioner is rendered stale and meaningless and/or
otherwise he seems to have acquiesced to his fait accompli and
(Downloaded on 10/04/2025 at 09:32:42 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18089] (2 of 3) [CW-1933/2018]
moved on in life for greener pastures. That is why perhaps, there
is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.
3. Apart from that, the relevant stand taken by the respondents
in reply to grounds (I to X) is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“That it is respectfully submitted that all the contentions raised
in grounds-I to X of the writ petition are wholly misconceived
and untenable in the eyes of law, hence denied and shall
always be deemed to have been denied unless they are
specifically admitted by the answering respondents. The
averments made in these grounds are nothing but the repetition
of the averments made in paras No.1 to 10 of the writ petition,
which have been suitably replied hereinabove and therefore, no
further repetition is required and answering respondents pray
that the reply to paras No.1 to 10 may also be treated as a part
of reply to these grounds. However, at the cost of repetition, it
is humbly submitted that vide amended advertisement Ex.R.2,
dated 18.11.2017 it was made known to all the applicants that
they can submit their application form up to 04.12.2017 in the
office either by hand or through post and on 06.12.2007 a list
of the applicants found eligible for interview shall be
displayed/pasted on the Notice Board of the office. It was
further made clear/known to all that interview shall be taken
on 07.12.2017 at sharp 10.00 am. at the office of 10 Battalion
RAC (I.R.), Bikaner and regarding this no separate information
will be sent to any candidates and no TA will be payable to the
applicants. This amended advertisement was also uploaded on
the official site of the respondent/Department i.e.
www.police.rajasthan.gov.in and remaining rules and conditions
shall remain same. This amended advertisement was also
published in the newspaper. Thus, all applicants were clearly
informed that interview shall be held at 10.00 a.m. Meaning
thereby, applicant/s was/were required to ensure that they shall
reach the office sharp at 10.00 a.m. It is the admission of the
petitioner himself that he did not reached by the said time i.e.
10.00 a.m, but he reached there at 10.10 a.m. and by the said
time all the applicants/candidates who came for appeared were
allowed to enter the Gate for interview and thereafter no
candidate, including the petitioner was allowed to enter the
Gate. If despite full knowledge the petitioner could not reach
the place of interview on time (i.e. at 10.10 a.m.) the answering
respondents cannot be blamed and/or held responsible for said
delay. As per rules no entry was permitted at 10.00 a.m. and it
is not the case of the petitioner that some persons/s was/were
allowed and he was not allowed. There is no arbitrariness in
the action of the answering respondents in the present
recruitment. Throughout the transparency was maintained in
the selection process and interview were also taken as per
rules.
(Downloaded on 10/04/2025 at 09:32:42 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18089] (3 of 3) [CW-1933/2018]
So far as the contention of the petitioner that he lodge a
complaint on Sampark Portal is concerned, the petitioner was
already informed about the result vide letter dated 28.02.2018,
Ex.R.5. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the
provisions of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India
are not at all attracted. The selection process is already over
and from all points of view the petitioner is not entitled to get
any relief from this Hon’ble Court.”
4. I am in agreement with the aforesaid stand taken by the
respondents in their reply as no further affidavit and/or rejoinder
has been filed to controvert the same.
5. Dismissed.
6. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
114-SP/skm/-
(Downloaded on 10/04/2025 at 09:32:42 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link