Ram Krishna Sharma Son Of Shri ... vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 851 Raj/2

[2023/RJJP/000494]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1349/2022

Ram Krishna Sharma Son Of Shri Madan Lal Sharma, Aged
About 59 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Nayan Amarsar,
Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur (Raj.).
                                                                        ----Appellant
                                      Versus
1.       The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary
         To The Government, School And Sanskrit Education
         Department,       Government            Of     Rajasthan,       Secretariat,
         Jaipur.
2.       The Director, Sanskrit Education Department, Rajasthan,
         Jaipur.
3.       Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma Son Of Shri Jagdish Narain
         Sharma, Resident Of Village Bobari, Via Manoharpur,
         District Jaipur. At Present Posted On Deputation To
         Rajkiya     Praveshika       Sanskrit        Vidyalaya,       Jaichandpura,
         Panchayat Samiti Jamwa Ramgarh, District Jaipur.
                                                                     ----Respondents

For Appellant(s)             :    Mr. Prahlad Singh
For Respondent(s)            :

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. PANKAJ MITHAL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA

Order

25/01/2023

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant.

2. The petitioner-appellant has preferred this intra court appeal

against the order dated 02.12.2022 by which his writ petition has

been dismissed.

3. The petitioner was a candidate pursuant to the

advertisement issued in the year 1992. The selection process for

the said recruitment concluded in the same year. After about 14

[2023/RJJP/000494] (2 of 2) [SAW-1349/2022]

years of the advertisement and the conclusion of the selection,

petitioner filed the writ petition alleging that he was more

meritorious than some of the selected candidates. The writ

petition has been dismissed relying upon one of the judgments of

the Apex Court and in view of the fact that once the selection

process is over and the petitioner has slept over his right for years

together, the petitioner-appellant is not entitled to any relief.

4. This apart the impugned order records that after arguing the

matter at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks

permission to withdraw the present writ petition.

5. In view of the above statement as recorded in the order, if

the counsel himself has made a request to withdraw the writ

petition and the petition has otherwise been dismissed, the

petitioner-appellant has no occasion to file an appeal.

6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not

find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed for the

reason that the petitioner-appellant himself had made a request

for the withdrawal of the writ petition and secondly the selection

process stood concluded 14 years ago.

7. In the circumstances the petitioner-appellant was not

entitled to any relief.

8. The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.

                                   (SHUBHA MEHTA),J                                              (PANKAJ MITHAL),CJ

                                   N.K. GANDHI/LAKSHYA SHARMA /14









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)