Disposed

Prasada v. Inspector General T S andORS

Rajasthan HC8 May 2014CW/13913/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged cancellation of provisional appointment in CISF for suppressing criminal case information. Court, noting subsequent approval of appointment and commencement of training, found no substantial issue, closed the writ proceedings, and preserved civil remedies.

What did the court decide?

Writ proceedings closed; petitioner at liberty to seek further remedy according to law.

Prasada Vs Inspector General T S andORS — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13913/2009 Prasada Vs. Inspector General & Ors.

Date of Order

::::

08.05.2014

PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶8

Mr. P.C.Dewanda on behalf of Mr. Manoj Bhardwaj, for the petitioner. Mr. Shashank Sharma, for the respondents.

¶9

¶10

The instant writ application was filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 4^th March, 2009 (Annexure-1) and order dated 18^th September, 2009 (Annexure-2) whereby the provisional appointment accorded in favour of the petitioner for the post of Constable/Driver in CISF vide order dated 9^th January, 2009, was cancelled for he had suppressed the information about registration of a criminal case for offence under Section 279 and 336 IPC, for which he was imposed with a fine of Rs.700/- under Section 279 and Rs.100/- under Section 336 while disposing of the case on 1^st February, 2008.

¶11

An appeal against the order dated 4^th March, 2009 was also dismissed by the appellate authority on 18^th September, 2009, confirming the order dated 4^th March, 2009.

¶12

¶13

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents gives out that during the pendency of the writ proceedings vide order dated 12^th December, 2012, the competent authority has approved the appointment of the petitioner dated 9^th January, 2009 and as a consequence thereof, the petitioner was directed to report on 22^nd December, 2012 for undertaking the 'Basic Training' of Constable/Driver which was scheduled to commence w.e.f. 24^th December, 2012. The learned counsel for the respondents has also produced a photo-copy of the order dated 12^th December, 2012, which bears thumb impression of the petitioner as an acknowledgment of having received the order.

¶14

The learned counsel for the respondents further gives out that after having imparted the 'Basic Training', the petitioner has been accorded an appointment in CISF vide communication dated RTC Bhilai SO/10/2013 dated 26^th February, 2013.

¶15

In view of the above nothing substantial survives in the instant writ application for adjudication.

¶16

Consequently, the writ proceedings are hereby closed. However, it is made clear that the petitioner would be at liberty to avail remedy for any relief for

¶17

¶18

which the petitioner is still entitled as a consequence of

¶19

order dated 9^th January, 2009, according to law.

¶20

The I.A.No.9909/2014, also stands closed.

¶21

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J.

¶22

Pcg

¶23

All corrections made in judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. P.C.Gupta, P.A.

Prasada v. Inspector General T S andORS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasada v. Inspector General T S andORS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Govil Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Banshiwal Bairwa Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Sharwan Kumar Vs R S R T C and Anr.

Yogesh Parashar Vs Assistant Prov Fund and Ors.

Registrar, U O R Jaipur and Ors. Vs the Authority Under Payment of

Ram Chandr Mali Vs Po,Labour Court and It