Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Meera Sharma vs State (Rural Dev. &Panchayat Raj) & Ors on 9 September, 2011
Author: Gopal Krishan Vyas
Bench: Gopal Krishan Vyas
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
:ORDER:
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8178/2011 (Meera Sharma Vs. State & Ors.) Date of Order :: 09.09.2011 PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, for the petitioner.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance of order passed in earlier writ petition the petitioner was provided appointment in NAREGA Scheme on contract basis but the appointment of 42 candidates has been renewed but the petitioners' case has been ignored, therefore, direction may be issued to the respondents for considering her case for renewal of contract.
In earlier writ petition being SBCWP No.4038/2011 filed by the petitioner, on 11.5.2011, the following order was passed by this Court :
2
"In this view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file representation for the purpose of renewal of his contract and raise all grounds in the representation. Upon filing such representation, it is expected from the respondent No.2 that he will decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of 15 days from the date of filing said representation and will consider the prayer of the petitioner objectively and pass speaking order. However, it is made clear that if any adverse order is passed by the respondent No.2, then the petitioner will be at liberty to file fresh representation."
In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed a representation to the respondents. The representation filed by the petitioner was considered and impugned order dated 3/15.6.2011 has been passed by the respondents in which the reasons for non-renewal of the contract has been incorporated.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the enquiry conducted by the respondents, no allegations were proved against the petitioner, therefore, the order impugned is totally illegal.
I have perused the order impugned whereby the 3 respondent No.2 gave reasons for non-renewal of the contract the petitioner, therefore, no error has been committed by the respondents in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for renewal of contract. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed.
(Gopal Krishan Vyas), J.
arun