Ram Prasad and 6 ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.

Ram Prasad and 6 ors. vs The State of Rajasthan and ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Rajasthan Decided Aug 28, 1992

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/762472

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/762472
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: G.S. Singhvi, J.
Decided On: Aug 28, 1992
Case Number: S.B. Civil Petition Nos. 346 of 1989, 5511, 5714, 6536, 7182, 7184, 7236
Subject: Service
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Constitution of India - Article 226--Writ--Relief sought given by department--Held, it is not necessary to give further directions.;The petitioners have been given appointment by order dated 24.6.92, relief sought for by them has been given by the Department itself and, therefore, no further direction is necessary t...

Key legal issue: Service
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ram Prasad and 6 ors.

Respondent

The State of Rajasthan and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: 1992(3)WLC108; 1992WLN(UC)352

Excerpt

constitution of india - article 226--writ--relief sought given by department--held, it is not necessary to give further directions.;the petitioners have been given appointment by order dated 24.6.92, relief sought for by them has been given by the department itself and, therefore, no further direction is necessary to be given by this court.;writ dismissed as infructuous - .....wrote a letter dated 22.4.91 to the genera] administration department seeking extension of the non-availability certificate issued on 5.7.90 notwithstanding this letter of the settlement commissioner, the appointment orders were not issued in favour of the petitioners.2. yesterday the learned dy. govt. advocate was directed to seek instructions from the department and state as to why appointments have not been given to the petitioners notwithstanding the availability of the vacant posts.3. today, learned dy. govt. advocate has stated at bar that after the filing of the writ petitions an order dated 24.6.92 had been issued by the settlement department, rajasthan, jaipur and in all 62 candidates, who have been selected in the year 1980, have been given appointments. names of all the petitioners appear in the order dated 24.6.92. the names of the candidates have been arranged in the said order according to their merit.4. in view of the facts that the petitioners have been given appointment by order dated 24.6.92, relief sought for by them has been given by the department itself and, therefore, no further direction is necessary to be given by this court.5. these writ petitions are therefore, dismissed as having become infructuous. parties are left to bear their own costs.

Full Judgment

G.S. Singhvi, J.

1. In all these writ petitions the petitioners have made a prayer for issue of a writ of mandamus to appoint them on the post of Amin in pursuance of their selection made by the competent authority. The petitioners have stated that they had appeared in the competitive examination held under the orders of the Settlement Commissioner, Rajasthan, Jaipur. After they had successfully completed the examination they were asked to undergo training. A large number of persons who were higher in merit were given appointment by the Settlement Commissioner. However, the petitioners were not given appointment. The petitioners have stated that notwithstanding the availability of the posts their appointments have been delayed. The petitioners have referred to a statement made by the Government on the floor of the legislative asset by in answer to a starred question of Dr. Ujla Arora, Member of Legislative Assembly, wherein the Government had stated that the appointments of Amins could not be made on account of dis-binding of two T.A.D. parties of the Settlement Department at Udaipur and Banswara. Now directions have been given to the settlement Commission for issuing order of appointment. After this statement was made the Settlement Commissioner wrote a letter dated 22.4.91 to the Genera] Administration Department seeking extension of the non-availability certificate issued on 5.7.90 Notwithstanding this letter of the Settlement Commissioner, the appointment orders were not issued in favour of the petitioners.

2. Yesterday the learned Dy. Govt. Advocate was directed to seek Instructions from the Department and state as to why appointments have not been given to the petitioners notwithstanding the availability of the vacant posts.

3. Today, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate has stated at Bar that after the filing of the writ petitions an order dated 24.6.92 had been issued by the Settlement Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur and In all 62 candidates, who have been selected In the year 1980, have been given appointments. Names of all the petitioners appear In the order dated 24.6.92. The names of the candidates have been arranged in the said order according to their merit.

4. In view of the facts that the petitioners have been given appointment by order dated 24.6.92, relief sought for by them has been given by the Department itself and, therefore, no further direction is necessary to be given by this Court.

5. These writ petitions are therefore, dismissed as having become Infructuous. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1992 Same Parties Ram Prasad and 6 ors. vs The State of Rajasthan and ors. Same Subject Service Same Judge G.S. Singhvi, J.

Service