Lokesh Sharma Son Of Sh. Lallu ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 6575 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

               D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 934/2021

Lokesh Sharma S/o Shri Lallu Prasad Sharma, aged about 54
years, R/o Gram Deedwana, Tehsil - Lalsot, District Dausa
(Rajasthan)
                                                                      ----Appellant
                                    Versus
1.     State of Rajasthan, through Secretary, Department of
       Forest, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
2.     The Secretary Department of Personnel, Secretariat,
       Jaipur.
3.     Chief Conservator of Forest, Ajmer, Van Bhavan Ajmer.
4.     Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Hoff), Rajasthan,
       Arany Bhavan, Jaipur.
5.     Dr.     Chanda       Ram     Meena,         the     then       Acting     Chief
       Conservator of Forest and Conservator Of Forest, Van
       Bhavan, Ajmer At Present - Conservator Of Forest
       (Monitoring And Evaluation), Bharatpur.
6.     Sunil     Chhidri,       Deputy    Conservator            Of   Forests,    Van
       Bhavan, Ajmer.
7.     Narendra Singh Shekhawat, Assistant Conservator Of
       Forest, Van Bhavan, Ajmer.
8.     Deputy Conservator Of Forest, Van Bhavan, Ajmer.
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Bhagwati For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harshal Tholia on behalf of Dr. Vibhuti Bhushan Sharma, AAG

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Order 16/11/2021

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the

State counsel who has been provided advance copy and has

accepted our request for appearing on such advance copy.

(2 of 2) [SAW-934/2021]

The appellant original petitioner has filed this appeal in which

several prayers, many of them not connected with each other

have been made. Such an appeal in any case would not be

entertained for misjoinder of causes of action. The counsel for the

appellant may be correct in pointing out that the petitioner's prime

grievance of not being allowed to join duty despite stay against

the order of transfer by the Tribunal and the High Court, required

consideration. However, in the present format, we are not inclined

to revive the petition.

Under the circumstances, while disposing of this appeal, it is

provided that it would be open to the petitioner to institute fresh

petition segregating his different grievances and such petition if

filed, shall be decided on merits unmindful of the observations

made by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

                                    (REKHA BORANA),J                                                       (AKIL KURESHI),CJ

                                   Anil Goyal/BM Gandhi-PS/5









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)