Dismissed

Om Prakash Sharma v. State of Raj and Anr.

Rajasthan HC4 May 2015CW/1145/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a corrigendum reserving unfilled reserved-category vacancies in contract Ayurved Chikitsak posts for the general category, citing M. Nagraj. Court dismissed the writ petition as an exercise in futility after eight years.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the corrigendum dated 24-9-2007 was dismissed with no force found in the challenge.

Om Prakash Sharma Vs State of Raj and Anr. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

Om Prakash Sharma Vs. State of Rajsthan & Another (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1145/2009)

¶3

May 04, 2015.

¶4

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA

¶5

Mr. Nitesh Kumar Garg, for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjay Sharma, for respondents.

¶6

BY THE COURT :

¶7

The matter has been restored today and taken up for hearing with

¶8

consent of the counsel.

¶9

A challenge has been made by the petitioner to the corrigendum dated 24-9-2007 providing that unfilled vacancies in the quota reserved for OBC/ SC/ST for appointment to the post of Ayurved Chikitsak for a period of one year on consolidated remuneration, would not be filled up by the candidates of general category as was initially notified vide advertisement dated 15-9-2007.

¶10

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner belongs to

¶11

general category and in terms of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Nagraj Vs. Union of India [(2006)8 SCC 212] unfilled vacancies belonging to the OBC quota are liable to be filled up by the candidates of general category. He submits that the corrigendum to the advertisement dated 15-9-2007, notified on 24-9-2007 is thus liable to be set aside.

¶12

¶13

Mr. Sanjay Sharma, counsel for respondents submits that the advertisement in issue related to appointment of Ayurved Chikitsaks on contract basis on a fixed remuneration for a period of one year in the year 2007. The appointments were not on regular basis under the extant recruitment rules for Ayurved Chikitsaks. He submits that eight years have elapsed in the meantime and appointments for a fixed period of one year on consolidated remuneration cannot be and ought not to be addressed at this point of time—after 8 years, as it would only be an exercise in futility and expand valuable court time to no effect.

¶14

Having heard counsel for the parties and considering the facts of the

¶15

case, I find no force in the writ petition. It is dismissed.

(Alok Sharma), J.

arn/

All corrections made in the order have been incorporated in the order being emailed.

¶20

Arun Kumar Sharma, Private Secretary.

Om Prakash Sharma v. State of Raj and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash Sharma v. State of Raj and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

O/L Ofm/S Rathi Alloys and Steels Ltd. Vs

Bundi Agrimarketing Yard Pvt. Ltd. Vs

Subodh Kumar Jangid Vs Shri Omendra Bhardwaj

Syed Sahid Ali Vs Director Secondary Education Ors.

Sunder Lal Jat Vs State Panchayati Raj Dep Ors.

Ratan Lal Vs State of Raj and Ors.