Dismissed

Nagendra Kumar v. Raj Rajya Vidyut Utp and Ors.

Rajasthan HC20 Sept 2023CW/4926/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two connected writ petitions challenging non-appointment against REVRIL. The petitioners sought appointment under an advertisement, but the Court noted their degrees were cancelled and all posts were filled, finding no locus standi or cause of action.

What did the court decide?

None. Both writ petitions were dismissed as infructuous due to degree cancellation and completion of recruitment process. Pending stay and other applications were also dismissed.

Nagendra Kumar Vs Raj Rajya Vidyut Utp and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4926/2010

¶3

Nagendra Kumar son of Shri Khem Chand, aged about 36 years, resident of Village Bhoja Ka Baas, Post Moruwa, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan).

¶4

...Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Limited (A Govt. of Rajasthan Enterprises), through the Managing Director, Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jaipur.

¶7

The Joint Director (W & M) Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Janprth, Jaipur.

¶8

The Chief Accounts Officer (W & M), Vidyut Utpadan Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jaipur.

¶9

4.The Vice Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodhgaya (Bihar)

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

Connected With

¶12

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2317/2011

¶13

Rajesh Kumar son of Shri Ram Dutt, aged 33 years, Resident of Village Budaniya Ka Bas, Post – Ramrikh Ki Dhani, Via Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.).

¶14

----Petitioner

¶15

Versus

¶16

Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Limited (A Govt. of Rajasthan Enterprises), through the Managing Director, Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jaipur.

¶17

The Joint Director (W & M) Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Janprth, Jaipur.

¶18

The Chief Accounts Officer (W & M), Vidyut Utpadan Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jaipur.

¶19

----Respondent

¶20

(2 of 3) [CW-4926/2010]

¶21

For Petitioner(s)	: None.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Virendra Lodha, Sr. Adv. with
	Mr. Jai Lodha

¶22

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶23

Order

¶24

20/09/2023

¶25

Since common question of facts are involved in both these petitions, hence both these petitions are disposed of by this common order.

¶26

For convenience the prayer made in SB Civil Writ Petition No.4926/2010 has taken into consideration.

¶27

Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:

¶28

“i) issue an appropriate Writ order or direction in the nature thereof and thereby direct the Respondents to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Accountant & Junior Accountant under the Advertisement No. 01/2008 (Annx.1); ii) Any other appropriate order or direction which the Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and the cost of the Writ petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner;”

¶29

By way of filing instant petition, the petitioner is seeking directions against the respondents to consider their case for appointment on the post of Accountant / Junior Accountant pursuant to the advertisement No.01/2008.

¶30

At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents apprised this Court that the B.Com Degrees of the petitioners

¶31

(3 of 3) [CW-4926/2010]

¶32

have been cancelled by the Magadh University, Bodh-Gaya way back in the year 2013 itself. Counsel submits that this fact was verified after making necessary verification from the concerned University and on the basis of the said verification an additional affidavit has been filed by the officer in charge of the case. Counsel further submits that the entire selection process arising out of the advertisement in question has been completed long back and all advertised posts have been filled and no posts are lying vacant. Counsel submits that under the changed circumstances, this petition has become infructuous.

¶33

Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record.

¶34

Considering the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the respondents and looking to the fact that the degrees of the petitioners have already been cancelled by the concerned University and looking to the fact that the entire recruitment process arising out of the advertisement in question has been completed long back and all advertised posts have been filled and no posts are lying vacant. Now, no cause of action further survives to continue this petition.

¶35

Both the writ petitions are dismissed accordingly. Stay applications and all applications (pending, if any) also stand dismissed.

¶36

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶37

KUD/205-206

Nagendra Kumar v. Raj Rajya Vidyut Utp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagendra Kumar v. Raj Rajya Vidyut Utp 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

Amit Kumar Sharma Vs Registrar General R H C Andanr

Kailash Chandra Damor Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Prof Dr Maya Rani Tak Vs State Education Departmentors

Arvind Dahiya S/O Jai Singh Dahiya Vs Rajasthan Public Service Commission

Surendra Singh Shekhawat Ors. Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Ram Kumar Verma Vs the Chairman S B B J and Ors.