Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Acts
  • Rules of Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1965)
  • ARTICLE 226 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
  • Rule 7-D of Rules of 1965,
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Acts
  • Rules of Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1965)
  • ARTICLE 226 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
  • Rule 7-D of Rules of 1965,

    Ashish Khandelwal v. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Medical And Health Services, Govt. Of Rajasthan And Others

    1. Petitioner has filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the amended Advertisement dated 5.12.2019.

    2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents had issued Advertisement dated 13.8.2018 for the post of Pharmacist. Petitioner had also submitted on-line application form in General category. At the time of issuance of advertisement no reservation was provided for economically weaker section. The examination which was to be conducted on 14.2.2019 was postponed. State Government issued a Notification dated 19.2.2019 giving benefit of reservation to the extent of 10% in direct recruitment to persons belonging to economically weaker sections. Rules of Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1965’) were also amended and thereafter, amended advertisement for filling up the post of Pharmacist was issued on 5.12.2019. Hence, the advertisement was liable to be quashed which had been amended in view of Rule 7-D of Rules of 1965, which was inserted vide Notification dated 19.2.2019.

    3. Although, it has been prayed by the petitioner that the Notification dated 19.2.2019 be declared unconstitutional, but no grounds/reasons have been enumerated in the petition as to why the Notification-in-question was liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments has also failed to specify any grounds for quashing the Notification-in-question. Thus, it is a case of no pleadings. Hence, no ground for interference is made out.

    4. Dismissed.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Ashish Khandelwal v. State Of Rajasthan, ...
    (Feb 27, 2020)