CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Roopa Ram Parihar and Another vs State of Rajasthan and Another

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 12 November 2010 · Citation: (2010) 11 RAJ CK 0084

HON’BLE JUDGES
Govind Mathur, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
SB Civil Writ Petition No. 10321 of 2010
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 358 words

Govind Mathur, J.—The petitioners entered in the services with the respondents being appointed as Junior Engineers in the year 1982. The promotions were given to the petitioner No. 1 as Assistant Engineer on 15.4.2005 against the vacancies of the year 2004-05. The petitioner No. 2 was promoted as such under an order dated 17.6.2008 against the vacancies of the year 2006-07.

2.

By an order dated 7.2.2002 Sarva Shri Yad Ram, Madan Lal Meghwal and Raju Ram were promoted as Assistant Engineer (Civil) Diploma Holder. The grievance of the petitioners is that Sarva Shri Yad Ram, Madan Lal Meghwal and Raju Ram were junior to them in the cadre of Junior Engineers, thus, their promotions prior to them under the order dated 7.2.2002 is erroneous. It is also submitted that beside the above named three persons Swaroop Raj Khorwal and Bansilal Kasotiya too were promoted as Assistant Engineer against the vacancies of the year 1997-98 under an order dated 2.4.2003 and these two persons were also junior than the petitioner.

3.

With the factual background above the petitioners are claiming promotion from the date persons junior to them were promoted.

4.

Heard counsel for the petitioner.

5.

The petitioners are claiming promotions from the date, persons junior to them were promoted. Such junior persons are not party to the proceedings. If any order as prayed is issued by this Court, that will certainly effect rights of the persons said to be junior than the petitioner. No such order, therefore, can be passed by this Court in their absence. The persons said to be junior than the petitioners are party necessary to the proceedings. This petition for writ suffers from lacunae i.e. of non-joinder of necessary party.

6.

Beside the above the persons said to be junior to the petitioners were promoted much back in the year 2002 and 2003. No adequate explanation is given by the petitioners for causing delay to challenge such promotions. The delay in filing the writ petition clearly indicates latches on part of the petitioners and that disentitle them to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.

7.

Accordingly, the petition for writ is dismissed.