Dismissed

Yashoda v. Smt. Veenu Gupta (Father Name Unknown)

Rajasthan HC6 Oct 2018WCP/914/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought contempt proceedings for failure to issue appointment orders despite being meritorious. Court discharged notices as verification was pending, disposed of petition, but granted liberty for future remedies if meritorious candidates are rejected in favor of less meritorious ones.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition disposed of; liberty granted to seek remedy if meritorious appointment is denied after verification.

Yashoda Vs Smt. Veenu Gupta (Father Name… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Writ Contempt No. 914/2018

¶3

Yashoda W/o Shri Pratap Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Ward No. 4, Dhalaki, Kalaliya, Tehsil Raipur, Dist.- Pali (Rajasthan).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Smt. Veenu Gupta (Father Name Unknown), Additional Chief Secretary Cum Principal Secretary To Government, Department Of Medical And Health Services, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶7

Shri Surendra Shekhawat (Father Name Unknown), Chief Medical Health Officer, Pali.

¶8

Shri Rajiv Jain (Father Name Unknown), Director, National Rural Health Mission, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶9

Dr. Amita Kashyap (Father Name Unknown), Director, State Institute Of Health And Family Welfare, Jhalana Institutional Area, Near Doordarshan Kendra, Jaipur.

¶10

Mr. Rakesh Sharma (Father Name Unknown), Additional Director (Administration), Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	A.P. Singh for
	Mr.	S.S. Sisodia
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Rishabh Tayal

¶13

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶14

Order

¶15

06/10/2018

¶16

Mr. Rishabh Tayal, associate of Mr. K.L. Thakur, AAG, learned counsel appearing for the respondents - contemnors informs that requisite compliance of the judgment and order dated 08.12.2017, contempt whereof has been alleged, has been made and the respondents have called for all the concerned candidates, including the petitioner for the documents verification, vide order

¶17

(2 of 2)

¶18

[WCP-914/2018]

¶19

dated 23.08.2018. He further informs that a notice to this effect has also been published in the newspaper to give vide publicity.

¶20

He however submits that appointment order(s) have not been issued to any of the candidates as yet and they are in the process of preparing the list.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that as the appointment order(s) have still not been issued to the petitioner, hence, the respondents are guilty of contempt.

¶22

The order dated 08.12.2017 passed by this Court to provide appointment was coupled with the condition that the petitioner should fall in the merit list. It is to be noticed that the proceedings for documents verification are still under way.

¶23

In view of aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to continue with the present contempt petition, for which, the notices are discharged.

¶24

The contempt petition stands disposed of for statistical purposes.

¶25

However, liberty is given to the petitioner to take appropriate remedies, if despite verification of documents and being meritorious, they are not given appointment and less meritorious candidates that them are given appointment.

¶26

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶27

Anurag/44

Yashoda v. Smt. Veenu Gupta (Father Name Unknown)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yashoda v. Smt. Veenu Gupta (Father Name Unknown)

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

Rakesh Kumar Vs Civil Judge, Sri Ganganagar and Anr.

Navneet Kumar Sharma Vs Veenu Gupta and Ors.

Dharu Ram Meena @ Dharu Vs Kanka Devi

Smt Sajju Vs K.K. Sharma and Ors.

Smt. Veena Ben Vs K.K. Sharma and Ors.

Dr. Khemchand Nagar and Ors. Vs Kuldeep Ranka and Ors.