High CourtsSINGLE BENCH(2017) 11 RAJ CK 0043

Mahendra Kumar Patel S/o Shri Bhim Patel vs The State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 16 November 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dinesh Mehta
RESULT
Disposed
CASE NUMBER
11684 of 2017

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 335 words
1.

The petitioner seeks to withdraw the prayer made in clause

(b) & (c) of the writ petition, in light of the judgment dated 05.10.2017 passed by this Court at Jaipur Bench rendered in S.B.

Civil Writ Petition No.5724/2017 titled as "Anil Kumar & Ors. Vs.

State of Rajasthan & Anr.

2.

On oral request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the prayer made in clause (b) & (c) of the writ petition is permitted to be withdrawn, which have otherwise been decided by this Court in the judgment dated 05.10.2017 (supra).

3.

Adverting to the petitioner's alternative prayer that the respondents be directed to grant relaxation in getting maximum marks, this Court is of the considered opinion that such relaxation can only be granted by the Competent Authority/State Government, for which there is no representation or request made by the petitioner. Without observing anything on the merit of petitioner's contention, whether he is entitled for such relaxation or not, this Court is of the considered opinion that no mandamus or direction can be issued, until and less there is corresponding request made by the petitioners.

4.

In view of above, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the petitioner that he may move an appropriate representation before the Competent Authority/State Government for relaxation in the eligibility conditions.

5.

As and when such representation is filed, the respondents would decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law preferably within a period four weeks from filing the representation.

6.

Needless to observe that the direction to decide petitioner's representation has been issued only with the view to esnure expeditious redressal of the petitioner's grievance and the same may not be construed to be a direction to decide the petitioner's representation in a particular manner.

7.

With these observations, the writ petition disposed of.

8.

Needless to observe that it shall be open for the petitioner to lay challenge to such decision of the State Government pursuant to petitioner's representation in accordance with law.