Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HAZARI LAL BAIRWA versus RAJ.STATE VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGA

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


HAZARI LAL BAIRWA v RAJ.STATE VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGA - CW Case No. 2127 of 2007 [2007] RD-RJ 2548 (9 May 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2127/07

Hazari Lal Bairwa

Vs.

Rajasthan State Vidyut Prasaran Nigam

Ltd. 9.5.2007

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq

Shri Tarun Jain for petitioner.

Shri Manish Bhandari for respondent.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even though he applied for appointment on the post of

Junior Engineer-II (Electrical) with the respondent Rajasthan State Vidyut

Prasaran Nigam Ltd., but the respondents refused to consider his case. It was submitted that the petitioner is a polytechnic diploma holder in Electrical

Engineering. He has furnished with his application form the experience certificate dated 8.3.2000 from APPC, a private organization of Bikaner and another experience certificate dated 19.4.2001 of apprentice training with

Rajasthan Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. He therefore submits that the respondents were not justified in refunding to consider his case for appointment.

The respondents have contested the writ petition. Shri Manish Bhandari, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that even though in the advertisement inviting application it was categorically stated that the candidates possessing working experience of more than one year on 66 KV line or high tension grid lines is eligible, but the petitioner did not fulfill either of these requirements therefore he was not eligible for being considered. It was argued that for general candidates the minimum marks required is 60%. The petitioner being belonged to backward class and by securing 58.95% he is eligible but because of lack of experience he did not have the eligibility for appointment.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I do not find that he action of th respondents can be held to be illegal in requiring the petitioner to possess the required experience notified in the advertisement. Even if the petitioner worked with certain private organization and has been a apprentice trainee, that cannot be equated with the required working experience.

I do not find any merit in this petition.

The writ petition is dismissed.

(Mohammad Rafiq),J.

Rs/-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.