This is a thin order closing a petition as infructuous because the petitioner's name appeared in a revised appointment list published after the writ was instituted, rendering the prayer obsolete.
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
I N THE HI GH COURT OF JUDI CATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAI PUR BENCH, JAI PUR
O R D E R
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6402/ 2003 Sunil Kumar Yadav Vs. The State of Raj. & Ors.
Date of Order
: : : : 14.05.2014
PRESENT
HON ' BLE MR.JUSTI CE VEERENDR SI NGH SI RADHANA
Mr. Tarun Choudhary, for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjay Kr.Sharma, G.C., for the State-respondents.
The instant writ proceedings were instituted in the year 2003 with a prayer for a writ, order or direction for appointment in pursuance to the advertisement dated 31st July, 2003 (Annexure-4). The learned counsel for the State-respondents gives out that in the revised list, which was published on 27th September, 2003 in pursuance to the advertisement dated 31st July, 2003, the name of the petitioner appeared at serial No.11. This position is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
In view of the factual matrix aforesaid, the writ application has become infructuous and, therefore, is closed, as such.
( VEERENDR SI NGH SI RADHANA) J.
Pcg
2
All corrections made in judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed. P.C.Gupta, P.A.
Sunil Kumar Yadav
The State of Rajasthan
Veerendra Singh Sradhana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
