The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging promotion orders dated 22 May 1995, holding the matter infructuous after observing that the petitioner was later promoted against the 1982-83 quota and subsequently retired upon attainment of superannuation age.
The writ petition has been dismissed and declared to be infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CW 1243/96 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1243/96
Hari Prasad Gupta Versus State & Ors.
DATE OF ORDER : 03/11/2009
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI
Mr. Ajeet Kumar Sharma for Mr. Manoj Sharma, for petitioner None present for respondents
Instant petition has been filed by petitioner
assailing orders dt.22nd May, 1995 [Ann.8 & Ann.9]
passed by respondents whereby private respondents
were promoted as UDC against the quota of 1981-
82.
It will be pertinent to mention that orders
were passed by the respondents in compliance of
the decision of learned Service Appellate
Tribunal dt.4th October, 1989. However, appeals
preferred before this court were dismissed and
Tribunal's order was finally upheld. It appears
from the record that petitioner was apprehending
his reversion from the post of UDC. But, later on
holding review DPC, the petitioner has also been
promoted as UDC against the vacancy of 1982-83
vide order dt.24th October, 2002 – xerox copy
CW 1243/96 [2]
whereof has been placed for perusal of this
Court. In compliance thereto, orders dt.22nd May,
1995 [Ann.8 & Ann.9] passed by the respondents,
are under challenge.
Apart from it, it has been further averred by
the respondents that post of UDC is to be filled
100% by promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-
merit and in terms of R.15, incumbent who is
graduate on completion of 3 yrs. experience and
non-graduate with 5 yrs. became eligible for
promotion and the petitioner who was promoted on
ad hoc basis since was not eligible, was reverted
to substantive post of LDC w.e.f. 30th November,
1981. It was further alleged by petitioner that
both the private respondent nos.3 & 4 are junior
to him. But, there is no documentary evidence on
record in support thereof. This fact has been
disputed by the respondents in Para 12 of their
reply.
No further counter has been filed by
petitioner controverting Para 12 of the reply
filed by the respondents.
CW 1243/96
[3]
As observed supra, since the petitioner has
been promoted on recommendation of DPC against
the quota of 1982-83 vide order dt.22nd October,
2002 and, as informed to this court, he has later
on retired from service on attaining age of
superannuation.
On account of change in circumstances and so
also reference made supra, present petition has
become infructuous and accordingly, dismissed.
FRBOHRA1243CW96 3-11.doc
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the promotion of private respondents is maintainable given the petitioner's subsequent promotion and retirement?
Whether the present petition has become infructuous due to the change in circumstances?
Hari Prasad Gupta
State & Ors.
Ajay Rastogi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court