Allowed

Murari Lal Sharma v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC9 Feb 2017CW/14625/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner approached the High Court regarding appointment seniority. The court directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's representation within three months, relying on RTI documents indicating the petitioner's prior appointment compared to a respondent official.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider and decide petitioner's representation within three months strictly in accordance with law.

Murari Lal Sharma Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 14625 / 2009

Murari Lal Sharma

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Raj & Ors

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankit Sethi

¶9

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kushal Singh for Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, GC for the State

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶11

Order

¶12

09/02/2017

¶13

The matter comes upon an application for early hearing of the matter. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. With the consent of both the parties, the writ petition is heard and disposed of finally.

¶14

The petitioner is approaching this Court in the third round of litigation for the following relief:-

¶15

“(i) To direct the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Class IV from the date Shri Ram Karan Gurjar has been given such appointment;

¶16

(ii) To further direct the respondent No.1 to take disciplinary action against the respondent No.3, who has mislead the Hon’ble Court by placing wrong facts before the Hon’ble Court in reply to contempt petition of the petitioner which has caused in dismissing the contempt petition;

¶17

(iii) Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper, may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner with costs.”

¶18

(2 of 4)

¶19

[CW-14625/2009]

¶20

In the earlier writ petition, on 02.11.2006 while disposing of

¶21

the writ petition of the petitioner, this Court passed the following order:-

¶22

“In view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and in view of the directions issued by this Court in the case of Ram Pratap (supra), the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner and if the petitioner is found senior than Ramkaran Gujar, he may be considered and given appointment, if he is otherwise found suitable to be given appointment.”

¶23

When the above directions were not complied with, petitioner filed a contempt petition. This Court after hearing the parties passed the following order in the contempt petition on 12.05.2008:-

¶24

“It is contended that pursuant to the direction of this Court, petitioner’s case was considered and one Shri Ramkaran was found to be senior than the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner was not found entitle for the benefits as was prayed by him.

¶25

A detailed order in that regard was passed on 27.10.2007 and a copy of which has been placed on record along with the reply.

¶26

Looking to the action of the respondents regarding compliance of the judgment, I am satisfied that the direction of this Court has now been complied with.”

¶27

During the pendency of the present petition, the petitioner received two documents on application being filed under the Right to Information Act dated 22.05.1990 which is the order for appointment of petitioner on adhoc basis and the order dated 05.12.1990 by which the respondent No.4 Ramkaran was appointed as part time Ward Boy.

¶28

(3 of 4)

¶29

[CW-14625/2009]

¶30

The two documents have been taken on record by this Court vide order dated 09.10.2012. On the strength of the two documents, the petitioner submits that the respondents have wrongly rejected the claim of the petitioner for appointment as the petitioner was appointed earlier than respondent No.4 and was senior to him.

¶31

In reply to this submission, the counsel for the respondents submits that as per muster roll maintained by the Department, the respondent No.4 is found to be senior to the petitioner, therefore, the case of the petitioner has rightly been rejected.

¶32

I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.

¶33

It is a fact that the cause of action to the petitioner is of 1990 but after having been directed by this Court, the respondents have considered the matter and come to the conclusion that respondent No.4 is senior to the petitioner but the two documents issued by the Department which are placed on record reflect that the petitioner was working in the respondent Department earlier than the respondent No.4.

¶34

In any case, the counsel for the petitioner submits that he will be satisfied if the respondents are directed to consider representation of the petitioner in the light of above two documents i.e dated 22.05.1990 & 05.12.1990 reflecting the seniority of the petitioner.

¶35

In the above circumstances, I am of the view that interest of the Justice will be met, if the respondents are directed to

¶36

(4 of 4)

¶37

[CW-14625/2009]

¶38

consider representation of the petitioner within a stipulated period. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider and decide representation of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt the same strictly in accordance with law.

¶39

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR)J.

¶40

Arti/30

Murari Lal Sharma v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murari Lal Sharma v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganpat Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Kamrudeen @ Kamar Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Amar Chand Saini Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Smt Geeta Devi and Others Vs Sharwan Singh and Others

Smt Santosh Devi and Others Vs Vikram Singh and Others

Gulab Chand Meena Vs State Panchayati Raj Depors