Dismissed

Rajendra Singh Chouhan v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC3 Jan 2019SAW/1922/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur dismissed an appeal seeking impleadment. The court held that the writ petitioner's right to permanent absorption did not confer necessary party status on an appellant contesting direct recruitment for the same post.

What did the court decide?

Appeal against the order dismissing the application for impleadment is dismissed.

Rajendra Singh Chouhan Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1922/2018

¶3

Rajendra Singh Chouhan S/o Shri Bahadur Singh, age 46 years, R/o Village & Post Bhuvasa, District Banswara (Raj.).

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of Medical and Medical and Health Service, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶7

The Director, Medical, Health And Welfare Service (IEC), Jaipur (Raj.).

¶8

The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Banswara.

¶9

The District Collector, Banswara.

¶10

Hemlata Jain W/o Shri Sanjay Jain,, Aged About 40 Years, By Caste Jain, R/o 3/35, Khandu Colony, Banswara (Raj.).

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Appellant(s) : Mr.P.R.Mehta For Respondent(s) : -----

¶13

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶14

Order

¶15

03/01/2019

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

¶17

Respondent No.5 in the appeal filed a writ petition challenging her repartition from the department of Medical & Health Services to the SWACH Project (NGO) (Banswara). In the writ petition she relied upon Government decisions to absorb persons who were on deputation in the Medial & Health Department of the State of Rajasthan to be permanently absorbed under the Government.

¶18

(2 of 2)

¶19

[SAW-1922/2018]

¶20

The appellant filed an application seeking impleadment on the plea that the post on which the writ petitioner was taken on deputation could not be filled up by deputation and had to be filled up by direct recruitment.

¶21

Vide impugned order dated 14.11.2017 the application seeking impleadment has been dismissed.

¶22

We concur with the view taken by the learned Single Judge for the reason in the writ petition filed by the respondent No.5 in the appeal the relief sough does not directly impact any vested right of the appellant. Merely because persons who could seek appointment by direct recruitment to the post held by the writ petitioner would be indirectly impacted by the decision in the writ petition filed by respondent No.5, would not confer upon the person the status of a necessary or proper party.

¶23

The appeal is dismissed.

¶24

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG),CJ

¶25

2-Kshama Dixit/-

Rajendra Singh Chouhan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Singh Chouhan v. State of Rajasthan

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

Subhash Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Mukesh Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

R.S.R.T.C.Jaipur and Anr. Vs Lrs of Vichitra Singh and Anr.

State of Raj. and Ors. Vs Manoj Kumar Jain

State of Raj. and Ors. Vs Ritu Goyal and Anr.

State of Raj. and Ors. Vs Manoj Kumar