Ghamanda Ram Choudhary vs Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd
2022 Latest Caselaw 3557 Raj

(1 of 3)

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3160/2022

Rugha Ram S/o Mala Ram, Aged About 40 Years, Bhiyad, Tehsil Shiv, District Barmer

----Petitioner Versus

1. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Through Chief Personnel Officer, Jaipur.

2. The Managing Director, Jodhpur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd, Jodhpur.

----Respondents

Connected with

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3163/2022

Ghamanda Ram Choudhary S/o Khinya Ram Choudhary, Aged About 38 Years, Maukhaba Kala, Tehsil Shiv, District Barmer.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Through Chief Personnel Officer, Jaipur.

2. The Managing Director, Jodhpur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd, Jodhpur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Deepika Purohit.

Mr. Jitendra Choudhary.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prateek Surana.

Mr. Mohit Choudhary.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Order

08/03/2022

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners

seeking quashing of Note appended to Clause 4 of the

(2 of 3)

advertisement and seeking age relaxation in view of Clause 4(i) &

4(v) of the advertisement dated 04.02.2022 (Annex.3).

Learned counsel for the respondents points out that the issue

raised in the petitions is squarely covered by the judgment in

Kumud Gauttam v. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited : S.B. Civil

Writ Petition No.14563/2018, decided on 26.07.2018 at Jaipur

Bench, which pertains to similar nature recruitment in the year

2018.

Further submissions have been made that the petitioners -

Rugha Ram and Ghamanda Ram filed SBCWP Nos.10317/2018 &

10315/2018 respectively raising similar issue and the said writ

petitions came to be decided by this Court on 09.01.2019

27.03.2019 respectively, following the judgment in the case of

Kumud Gauttam (supra) and therefore, besides the fact that the

issue is no more res integra, the petitioners having already failed

after raising the same issue on previous occasion, are estopped

for questioning the same by filing fresh writ petitions pertaining to

the present recruitment.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, after attempting to make

submissions, submits that the advertisement does not indicate as

to under which provision / Rules / Regulations, the recruitment is

being held and as such, the petitioners are seeking to question the

stipulation in the advertisement.

I have considered the submissions made. Apparently the

plea raised by the petitioners stands decided by the judgment in

Kumud Gauttam (supra) and as the petitioners had on earlier

occasion also sought to question the validity of the same

stipulation and had failed, the filing of the present petitions

(3 of 3)

without even disclosing the fact & fate of the earlier writ petitions,

cannot be countenanced.

Consequently, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners have

no substance and the same are, therefore, dismissed.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 47 & 48-Rmathur/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)