Dismissed

Jai Kumar Sharma v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC18 Jan 2024SAW/281/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A special discretionary appeal was filed to condone a 223-day delay. The applicant challenged a Single Judge's order dismissing a writ petition relating to employment conditions. The Court held the appeal time-barred and dismissed it on merits, finding no cause for interference.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as barred by limitation and on merits; no interference called for.

Jai Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:2903-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 281/2023

¶4

Jai Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Vasudev Sharma, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of Tiwadi Bhawan, Ward No. 48, Near Police Line, Vivekanand Bhilwara (Raj)

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Law And Legal Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

The District Collector, Bhilwara, Rajasthan. 3. The Speical Public Prosecutor, (Sc/st) Court, Bhilwara. 4. Chairman Trig Ex-Serviceman Welfare Co-Operative Society Limited, B-173, Jamnapuri Colony, Murlipura Scheme, Jaipur 302013

¶9

Ramesh Meena S/o Ramswaroop Meena, C/o District Collector Office, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Ramniwas Choudhary
For Respondent(s)	: ---

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI

¶13

Order

¶14

18/01/2024

¶15

The matter comes up for consideration of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act preferred on behalf of the appellant with a prayer to condone the delay of 223 days in filing the present appeal.

¶16

By of instant appeal, the appellant has challenged the validity of the order dated 09.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11321/2022.

¶17

[2024:RJ-JD:2903-DB]

¶18

[SAW-281/2023]

¶19

Learned Single Judge has opined that a perusal of the order dated 18.05.2017 (Annex.-8) clearly shows that the petitioner despite being ‘man with machine’ was asked to duties of stenographer and once the regularly selected stenographers have been appointed, the respondents’ action cannot be said to be illegal, as the engagement of the appellant-writ petitioner was conditional and required to be continued only up to the availability of regularly selected stenographers.

¶20

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and after going through the material available on record, no interference is called for by this Court in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶21

Hence, the present appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation as well as on merits also.

¶22

(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J

¶23

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶24

52-nitin/divyaJ/-

Jai Kumar Sharma v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Kumar Sharma v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jodhpur Develipment Authority, Jodhpur Vs Farida

Harish Suhalka Vs Union Bank of India

State of Rajasthan Vs Shri Haridutt S.T.C. College

Farhan Vs Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur

State and Ors. Vs Samada Devi

Mukesh Kumar Lamba Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation