The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the appointment of persons lacking a specialized qualification. The Court held the petitioner's claim was hypothetical as necessary parties were not impleaded, making seniority unchallengeable.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.
...
ORDER
...
D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3355/1997
SMT. MANI MALA JAIN. VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.
DATE OF ORDER ::: 23.9.2014
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.SUNIL AMBWANI HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Mr.R.S. Saluja, for the petitioner. Mr.Ajeet Singh ) for the respondents. Mr.Khet Singh )
We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
During the course of arguments, it is submitted that though the petitioner has challenged the qualifications namely, “Degree in Fine Arts with specialisation in Commercial Arts, in addition to the main qualification, (the Degree in Fine Arts), the petitioner was not selected.
The challenge in this writ petition is on the facts that in pursuance to the advertisement issued in the year 1997 for direct recruitment, some persons who did not have specialisation in Commercial Arts as an additional qualification were selected. It is admitted that the selections were challenged in writ petition no.2810/1997 in which the present petitioner was one of the writ petitioner but the Court confined the relief to only the petitioner no.1.
In this writ petition, whereas the challenge has been made
2
to appointment of 9 persons appointed by way of direct recruitment in pursuance to the advertisement issued in the year 1997, none of the selected persons have been impleaded as party respondents.
We are of the view that the petitioner's claim is hypothetical in as much as, it is stated that if the recruitment of 1994 were cancelled, the petitioner, after her regularisation, will be treated as senior to them as they did not possess the requisite qualifications. In absence of the persons who were selected, the petitioner cannot be allowed to challenge their selections, nor can claim seniority over them.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The stay petition also stands dismissed.
(VIJAY BISHNOI), J.
(SUNIL AMBWANI), Actg.CJ.
S.Phophaliya/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has locus standi to challenge the appointment of non-parties when her seniority claim is hypothetical.
Whether absence of selected persons precludes a claim of seniority based on cancelled recruitment.
Smt. Mani Mala Jain
State of Raj.
Vijay Bishnoi
Sunil Ambwani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
