Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 39140 (RAJ)

SHYAM LAL S/O SHRI MOTA RAM v. HONBLE CHIEF MINISTER

CW/11413/2025 · 2025-10-07

Ashok Kumar Jain

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:40735] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11413/2025 Shyam Lal S/o Shri Mota Ram, Aged About 47 Years, Presently Residing 7/98, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Honble Chief Minister, Government Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Chief Secretary, Government Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 4. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Services Commission, Ajmer, Rajasthan. 5. Shri Naresh Bunkar, At Present Posting Additional Collector And Additional District Magistrate, Rajsamand, Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel Government Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 6. Shri Beena Mahawar, At Present Posting Additional Collector And Additional District Magistrate (City), Alwar, Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel Government Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 7. Smt. Suman Panwar, At Present Posting Additional Director Disablities, Jaipur Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 8. Smt. Anupam Kayal, At Present Posting General Manager Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited, Jaipur Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 9. Ms. Vandana Khorwal, At Present Posting Deputy Inspector General, Registration And Stamps (Vigilance), Ajmer Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. [2025:RJ-JP:40735] (2 of 3) [CW-11413/2025] 10. Shri Ramchandra, At Present Posting Additional Commissioner (Admn.) Excise Department, Jodhpur Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shyam Lal, petitioner in person For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 07/10/2025 1. Instant writ petition is preferred by petitioner who himself claims to be an advocate and the grievance of this person pertains related to RAS Direct Recruitment Examination organized in year 2008, though writ petition is filed on 23.07.2025 with prayer to remove all such candidates who were selected and appointed by fake and fabricated documents and deploying unfair means. Another prayer of present petitioner is for appointing him for the service of RAS. 2. After considering the submission of petitioner in person, the Court has asked about his locus and material on the basis of which he can peruse the grounds mentioned in present petition. Despite repeated opportunity, the petitioner has failed to show any document to substantiate the grounds mentioned in the petition rather he wants to impress upon the Court with his leadership skill and pointing fault of the system while selecting respondent nos. 5 to 10 in the cadre of RAS. [2025:RJ-JP:40735] (3 of 3) [CW-11413/2025] 3. After having thoughtful consideration of the submission of petitioner in person and also the grounds and material on record, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has no genuine case in pursuing the prayer as made in the petition. Prima facie, it appears that this is a frivolous and vexatious petition and primarily intended to get attention of the Court which is sufficient to presume that the petition is going to waste time of the Court and same is liable to be dismissed at threshold. 4. The petition is devoid of merits and being frivolous, vexatious, and filed with intent to abuse the process of law. Thus, the writ petition is dismissed at a cost of ₹1,00,000/-. 5. The cost amount of ₹1,00,000/- shall be recoverable from the petitioner and if same is not deposited within four weeks from today after recovery, same be deposited in the cost fund of RSLSA. 6. Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J CHETNA BEHRANI /79