Dismissed

Ashok Kumar Sharma v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC18 May 2017CW/5350/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a direction for appointment as Office Assistant for an Addever tised post in 2002. The Court dismissed the petition as devoid of merit, holding that the underlying project ended in 2004, rendering no appointment necessary. A liberty was granted to reapply in case of a fresh advertisement.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to apply in case of a fresh advertisement issued by the respondents.

Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Public Procurement and Tenders | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5350 / 2011

¶3

Ashok Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Gyarishi Lal Sharma, Aged About 31 Years, Village Bhojwada, Tehsil Baswa District Dausa (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan, Through the Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

Director, Rajasthan Council for Primary Education (RCPE), Jaipur.

¶8

District Collector Cum Chairman DPEP, (Sarve Shiksha Abhiyan), Dausa (Raj.)

¶9

District Education Officer Elementary Education Cum District Project Coordinator (sarve Shiksha Abhiyan), Dausa.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Praveen Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶13

/ Order

¶14

18/05/2017

¶15

Instant petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying interalia that the respondents be directed to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner for the post of Office Assistant/Assistant Programmer, in pursuance of the advertisement issued in the year, 2002.

¶16

Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has submitted that in pursuance of the advertisement dated 29.04.2002, no appointment has been given to any person till today and the respondents are in process of shelving the advertisement, as the project for which post was advertised in the year, 2004 came to to an end. Hence, there is no requirement of the

¶17

(2 of 2)

¶18

[CW-5350/2011]

¶19

respondents to engage the person for which advertisement was issued. Counsel appearing for the respondents has further raised an objection that the advertisement was issued in the year, 2002, the present writ petition has been filed in the year, 2011 i.e. after nine years and, hence, present petition also suffers from delay and latches.

¶20

Considering that as per the statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, the project came to an end in the year, 2004 and in pursuance of the advertisement dated 29.04.2002, no person has been appointed till today, this Court is of the view that no interference is warranted.

¶21

Consequently, present petition stands dismissed being devoid of merit.

¶22

However, a liberty is granted to the petitioner that in case any fresh advertisement is issued by the respondents, the petitioner may apply in pursuance thereof.

¶23

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)J.

¶24

ashok

Ashok Kumar Sharma v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar 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

Kamlesh Kumar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp and Anr.

Gyarsi Lal Vs State Pub Health an Engg Ors.

Phool Chand Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Shobhit Agarwal Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Sujeet Singh and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Kishor Meel Vs State of Rajasthan through P P