Dismissed

Nimba Ram v. State Forest Department Ors.

Rajasthan HC6 Mar 2025CW/8571/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition challenging a recruitment process for the post of Forest Guard initiated in 2010. Holding that appointments had already been made and no vacant seats remained, the court applied the ratio of earlier precedents and a subsequent judgment in the same lis, finding that belated judicial interference is not permissible.

What the court decided

AI extract

Nimba Ram Vs State Forest Department Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:10673]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8571/2011

Nimba Ram

----Petitioner

Versus

State Forest Department & Ors.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : None For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Lodha, AGC

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶11

Judgment

¶12

06/03/2025

¶13

At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the respondents have submitted that the present petition is filed assailing an/a advertisement/selection/recruitment process initiated in the year 2010 wherein the petitioner(s) has/have applied for the post of Forest Guard.

¶14

Subsequently, it is apprised that ever since issuance of the said advertisement/recruitment process much water has flown and as on date the impugned selection process is already over with all its consequential appointments being granted/made. Nevertheless, a subsequent fresh advertisement/selection process was also initiated and culminated. Thence, it can be deduced that as on date, no vacant seats/posts are available.

¶15

Lastly, it is apprised that the present lis /identical lis is no more res integra and is already adjudicated vide judgment dated 13.02.2025 passed in SBCWP No. 2706/2000 titled as Om

[2025:RJ-JP:10673]

[CW-8571/2011]

(2 of 2)

Prakash Ghiya Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. Therefore, the said ratio can be made applicable to the present petition also.

¶20

In pursuance of the contentions noted insofar, this Court deems it apposite to place reliance upon the ratio encapsulated in State of Orissa & Anr. v. Raj Kishore Nanda & Ors. reported in (2010) 6 SCC 777, Girdhar Kumar Dadhich Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2009) 2 SCC 706, Union of India v. B. Valluvan reported in (2006) 8 SCC 686 and Raj Rishi Mehra & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2013) 12 SCC 243 , and the circulars issued by the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Personnel dated 19.07.2001 bearing No. F.7(2)/DOP/A-2/81 Pt. and Øekad i-7 ¼2½ dkfeZd@d&2@81 ikVZ dated 13.01.2016 passed by jktLFkku ljdkj dkfeZd ¼d&2½ foHkkx, whereby it is made unambiguous that qua the selection process for any public service examination, the waiting/reserved list lapses after a span of six months from the date of its issuance, and if appointments are already made, then no judicial interference can be made at a belated stage.

¶21

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed in light of ratio passed in Om Prakash Ghiya (supra) which shall be treated as a part and parcel of the present judgment. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶22

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶23

Pooja /103

Nimba Ram v. State Forest Department Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Nimba Ram v. State Forest Department Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjeev Kumar Tanwar Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Kritika Pareek D/O Desh Bandhu Sharma Vs the State of Rajasthan

Surendra Singh S/O Jagroop Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Pramod Meena Vs a v v N Ltd. and Ors.

Rajnish Bhardwj Vs R S R T C and Anr.

Vijay Kumar Mudgal Vs District and Session Judge