HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS Judgment 06/10/2017
1. In the interest of justice, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Other defects are waived.
2. By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge whereby learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition preferred by the petitioner.
3. The learned Single Judge while considering the matter has considered the earlier judgment in writ petition no. 2194/2017 dt. 17.2.2017 (Paras Ram Bairwa vs. State of Raj. & Anr.) where the judgment of Principal Seat at Jodhpur has been followed in CWP No.750/2017 (Mukesh Kumar Tailor vs. State of Raj. & Anr.) decided on 9.2.2017, operative part of which reads as under:- In view of the fair stand taken by the respondent State and appreciating the exercise being undertaken by them to meet the situation in hand, all the abovementioned writ petitions are disposed of as under :- a. The respondent-State shall workout the vacancies in each of the Zila Parishads as expeditiously as possible. Thereafter, the list shall be prepared of the candidate who have got more marks than the last candidate still working with the department in pursuance to the directions of this Court passed in Manju Choudhdarys case (supra). b. Thereafter, the candidates as per the ratio of 1:2 of the vacancies available shall be called for the verification of the documents and the appointments shall be given to such like eligible candidates as per their merit equivalent to the vacancies available with the department. c. This Court is aware that some of the candidates are bound to be left out (3 of 3) [SAW-908/2017] even though they have got more marks than the last candidate but taking into account the limited number of vacancies, the said candidates shall have to try their luck in the next recruitment process afresh. d. The said process be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within 06 months from today. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.
4. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. No case is made out for interference.
5. The appeal stands dismissed. (VIJAY KUMAR VYAS),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. Brijesh 11.