Shakuntala vs Union Of India ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 9823 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:39206-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11074/2023 Shakuntala D/o Madan Lal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Dudhwa Khara Station, Tehsil And District Churu At Present Railway Colony Quarter No.t-30-A, Churu.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Union Of India, Through The General Manager, North Western Railway, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.

2. Divisional Railway Manager, North Western Railway, Bikaner.

3. Chief Personnel Officer, North Western Railway, Jaipur.

4. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, North Western Railway, D.r.m. Office, Bikaner.

5. Madan Lal S/o Mangat Rai, By Caste Dhanak, R/o Dudhwa Khara Station, Tehsil And District Churu At Present Railway Colony Quarter No.t-30-A, Churu.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Kumar Jain. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, Dy.S.G.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Order 16/11/2023

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the

order dated 30.5.2023 passed by the Central Administrative

Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur ('the Tribunal'), whereby, the

original application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. The petitioner was apparently aggrieved of the action of the

respondents in not providing appointment to her under the

LARSGESS Scheme of the Railways.

3. The Tribunal after, referring to various pronouncements of

Hon'ble Supreme Court including the judgment in The Chief

Personnel Officer v. A Nishanth Geroge: (2022) 11 SCC 678, came

[2023:RJ-JD:39206-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-11074/2023]

to the conclusion that as the petitioner had no right, she was not

entitled to any relief and consequently, rejected the application.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to make

submissions that rejection of the application by the Tribunal was

not justified.

5. Learned Dy.S.G. with reference to judgment in the case of

A Nishanth Geroge (supra), submitted that all the issues sought to

be canvassed already stands concluded by the said judgment and,

therefore, no interference is required.

6. We have considered the submissions made by learned

counsel for the parties and have gone through the order passed by

the Tribunal as well as the judgment in the case of A Nishanth

Geroge (supra).

7. Hon'ble Supreme Court, after referring to all the judgments

on the subject-matter, has concluded that candidates like

petitioner cannot seek any relief only on account of the fact that

application was filed by them under the Scheme before the same

was scrapped by the Railways.

8. In view of the above, as the issues as raised already stands

concluded by judgment in the case of A Nishanth Geroge (supra),

no case for interference is made out in the present petition. The

same is, therefore, dismissed.

                                   (REKHA BORANA),J                                           (ARUN BHANSALI),J
                                    14-Sumit/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)