Abhishek Sharma S/O Ashok Kumar ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 219 Raj/2

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 219 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 10 January, 2022

Rajasthan High Court

Abhishek Sharma S/O Ashok Kumar ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 January, 2022

Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9563/2021

Abhishek Sharma S/o Ashok Kumar Sharma, Aged About 32
Years, R/o 3755, Vishnu Marg, Gangori Bazar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
       Economics And Statistics Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan
       Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2.     The Director, Directorate Of Economics And Statistics,
       Yojna Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur, (Rajasthan).
3.     The    Additional       Director        (Admm.),         Directorate    Of
       Economics And Statistics, Yojna Bhawan, Tilak Marg,
       Jaipur, (Rajasthan).
4.     The   Principal    Medical        Officer(PMO),          District   General
       Hospital, Baran, Rajasthan.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sukhdev Singh Solanki, through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendar Meel, Dy.G.C., through VC Mr. Damodar Prasad Pujari, through VC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Order

10/01/2022

The matter comes up on application (1/2021) filed by Smt.

Anika @ Lakshita, wife of the petitioner, seeking her impleadment.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on her

complaint, the order impugned in the writ petition, i.e., dismissing

the petitioner from service, has been passed. He submits that

there are allegations of malafide against the applicant in the

(2 of 3) [CW-9563/2021]

memo of writ petition and hence, she may be impleaded as party

respondent.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, opposing the prayer,

submitted that he has levelled no allegation of malafide against

the applicant in the writ petition. He submitted that the lis is in

between him and the State Government and hence, the applicant

has no locus to be impleaded as respondent. He, in support of his

submission, relied upon a judgment of this Court dated

01.08.2012 in case of Bedami Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan &

Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10073/2012 wherein, it was

held as under:

"8. A bare look at the prayer clause of the writ petition indicates that the orders sought to be impugned in the writ petition are that of the Additional Collector and the Divisional Commissioner Jaipur. No relief has been sought against the applicants nor any directions are required to be passed against the applicants. There is no reason for this court to imagine nor in fact has been alleged or argued that the State Government whose orders are effectively under challenge will not defend in this writ petition and the impugned orders therein with seriousness."

Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the

record.

It is trite that in a lis in between the employer and the

employee, third person cannot intervene even though he may be

complainant in the matter. By way of this writ petition, the

petitioner has assailed the legality and validity of the order dated

24.08.2021 whereby, he has been dismissed from service. In case

of Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., S.B. Civil

Writ Petition No.12230/2020, it was held as under:

(3 of 3) [CW-9563/2021]

"In the writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity and legality of the order dated 24.09.2020 whereby, he, a Patwari, has been placed under suspension on filing of the charge sheet no.45/2020 against him. Indisputably, it is a lis in between the petitioner and the official respondents wherein, this Court is not satisfied that presence of the applicant is necessary for just and effective disposal of the controversy raised in the writ petition. It is trite law that a complainant is not entitled to be impleaded as a party if the lis is in between the employer and the employee to which he/she is stranger. Learned counsel for the applicant has failed to satisfy this Court that she is either necessary or proper party in the litigation."

So far as contention of the learned counsel for the applicant

qua malafide is concerned, a perusal of the writ petition does not

reveal any allegation of malafide against the applicant. Even

otherwise also, it is a settled legal position that in absence of

party, allegation of malafide cannot be considered.

In view thereof, the application is devoid of merit and is

dismissed accordingly.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

Sudha/74