The High Court dismissed the writ petition concerning regularization of services and prevention of termination because the petitioner retired, making the petition infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5146/1992
Lalmani Tripathi
----Petitioner
Versus
State and Anr.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deo Dutta Kalla, Dy.G.C.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
01/09/2022
The brief facts of the case are as under :
The petitioner was appointed on purely ad-hoc post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon for a period of three months with effect from 24.03.1990. His services were extended from time to time and he continued to work till the year 1992. In the year 1991-92, a fresh advertisement for appointment to the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon was issued by the RPSC and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred the present petition with the relief that his services be not terminated and he be continued in service. It has further been prayed in the present writ petition that the services of the present petitioner be regularized with effect from 24.03.1990.
A perusal of the record shows that the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 29.09.1992 with effect from 30.09.1992 on the premise that he was not selected in the examination conducted by the RPSC.
(2 of 2)
[CW-5146/1992]
Although no interim order was passed in the present petition in favour of the petitioner, it seems that the petitioner was continued in service.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner, after completion of his tenure of services, stood retired on 30.06.2020 and therefore, the present petition has rendered infructuous.
On the last occasion i.e., 04.08.2022, when the matter was listed for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for time to serve a notice on the petitioner as he had no further instructions from him. In pursuance to the order dated 04.08.2022, the notice dated 08.08.2022 along with the postal receipt has been placed on record on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner.
In view of the above facts it is clear on record that firstly, the petitioner has now retired and therefore, no cause for the present petitioner survives; secondly, neither the petitioner nor his counsel has appeared and it seems that the petitioner is no more inclined in pursuing the present litigation.
Therefore, in view of the above facts, the present writ petition is dismissed.
All the pending applications also stand dismissed.
(REKHA BORANA),J
3-AnilKC/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition survives in light of the petitioner's retirement.
Whether to proceed with the petition when the petitioner has no instructions to appear.
Lalmani Tripathi
State
Rekha Borana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
