Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 14439 (RAJ)

BHINV SINGH S/O SHRI BANNE SINGH v. SECRETARY, RAJASTHAN MUNICIPAL (SUBORDINATES AND MINISTERIAL SERVICE)

WRW/49/2026 · 2026-09-01

Anand Sharma

Review Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:35227] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 49/2026 CNR: RJHC020120712026 | URN: WRW / 135U / 2026 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13608/2016 Bhinv Singh S/o Shri Banne Singh, aged about 42 years, R/o Village Post Sujanpura, Via Signrawah, Distt. Sikar, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. Secretary, Rajasthan Municipal (Subordinates & Ministerial Service), Selection Commission, G-3, Rajmahal Residency, Near Civil Lines Phatak, Jaipur. 2. Secretary, Local Self Government, Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. Director & Joint Secreatry, Local Self Government, G-3, Rajmahal Residency, Near Civil Lines Phatak, Jaipur. --Non-Appellants/Respondents 4. Mahendra Nath S/o Shri Gopal Nath, aged about 31 years, R/o Shrinath Sadan, 835/13, Opposite HMT Factory, Near New Masjid, Azad Nagar, Ajmer. 5. Manish Kumar Meena S/o Shri Ram Niwas Meena, aged about 27 Years, R/o House No. 221/12, New Chandra Nagar, Beawar Road, Ajmer. ----Performa Non-Appellants/Petitioners For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shreyansh Dhariwal For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 01/09/2026 1. Heard on S.B. Review Petition No.49/2026 filed by the petitioner for seeking review of order dated 21.04.2025 passed by this Court whereby writ petition filed by the petitioner was [2026:RJ-JP:35227] (2 of 2) [WRW-49/2026] dismissed. This Court has perused order dated 21.04.2025 wherein after considering the fact that the petitioner did not possess the qualification as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Town Planning Service Rules, 1966, (for short the 'Rules of 1966') the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. It has been specifically recorded in order dated 21.04.2025 that the petitioner has utterly failed to show that he is possessing any experience as required under the Rules of 1966. 2. In view of above, this Court does not find any error apparent in order dated 21.04.2025 therefore, the review petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. 3. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J 61/NEERU