Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mahendra Kumar Sharma vs Dist. And Sessions Judge, ... on 19 May, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2023/RJJD/016211]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12192/2015
Mahendra Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Banwari Lal Sharma, aged
about 30 years, R/o Dangarwara, Post Shrichandpura, Tehsil
Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
District & Sessions Judge, Rajsamand, District - Rajsamand.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishwajeet Singh Ranawat for
Mr. Shreekant Verma
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Akshiti Singhvi for Mr. Sandeep
Shah, AAG
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
19/05/2023
1. Ms. Akshiti Singhvi, learned counsel for the respondent
submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petition has
already been decided by this Court vide judgment dated
23.11.2017, passed in the case of Vikas Sharma Vs. District &
Sessions Judge, Rajsamand : S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.12575/2015.
2. In the case of Vikas Sharma (supra) this Court has held
thus:-
"A careful reading of the facts narrated in
para 3 of the aforesaid judgment shows that
the vacancy position had wrongly been
computed by the respondents. Apart from this,
a perusal of para No.6 of the judgment
aforesaid, dealing with the facts is also
relevant, which reads thus :-
[2023/RJJD/016211] (2 of 3) [CW-12192/2015]
"6 ... ... ... It was submitted that in
the instant case aside of 9 vacancies on
the post of LDC, 4 vacancies(2 for
general category, 1 for SC and 1 for
OBC) were available in the year 2014 on
account of promotions of LDCs to the
post of UDC which were made on 12-12-
2014."
A careful reading of the above paragraph
reveals that it has been noticed by the Court
that on account of promotion of LDCs to the
post of UDC on 12.12.2014, the vacancy arose
and based on this fact, this Court has held that
on accrual of the vacancies, as aforesaid, the
petitioner therein (Rajat Sharma) was entitled
for appointment. It is pertinent to note that in
the case before Jaipur Bench, the promotions
were made on 12.12.2014, well within one
year of the life of the wait list, as the
selections had been made on 25.6.2014;
whereas in the present case, it is undisputed
that the promotion of five candidates, which
were anticipated in the year 2014, could not
be made and the same were made on
29.1.2016. As such it is clear that in the
present case, the vacancy did not arise, during
the life of reserve list, whereas in Rajat
Sharma's case, the promotions were made
during the currency of the reserve list.
In view of the aforesaid, the judgment of
this Court rendered. in case of Rajat Sharma
(supra) is of hardly any help to the petitioner.
Thus, viewed from any angle, this Court
does not find any merit in petitioner's
contentions and substance in his submissions.
The writ petition, therefore, fails."
[2023/RJJD/016211] (3 of 3) [CW-12192/2015]
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to
dispute the aforesaid position of facts and law.
4. The present writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
5. Stay petition also stands dismissed.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
182-Ramesh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
