Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Netram Gurjar And Ors vs State Of Raj & Ors on 1 August, 2011

Author: Ajay Rastogi

Bench: Ajay Rastogi

    

 
 
 

 	                In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan 
				                 Jaipur Bench 
					                  **
                     Civil Writ Petition No.5969/2011
                     Netram Gujar & Ors  Versus State & Ors 

		        Date of Order     :::       01/08/2011

			           Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi 
  
Mr. Govind Choudhary, for petitioner.

It is a joint petition filed by the petitioners with the grievance that they were appointed under a Scheme of Van Mitra introduced by State Government vide Circular dt.17/07/2009 on contract basis for protection of the Environment & Wild Animals in the Forest areas - pursuant to which, petitioners executed an agreement for the period (01/03/2010 to 28/02/2011), which indisputably has not been extended any further.

Counsel submits that there was a condition stipulated in the agreement that if their work is found to be satisfactory, they will be considered for extension of their contract & the Committee has recommended about their satisfactory work; yet no order has been passed by respondents extending their service contract or for review of their contracts of service.

It is not the case of petitioners that after their contract having expired or come to an end on 28/02/2011, any fresh appointments have been made by State Government in absence whereof, no right is conferred in favour of the petitioner.

The submission made by Counsel that despite the Committee having recommended of their work being satisfactory, no order has been passed for extension of their contract of service, is without substance for the reason that even if a Committee recorded satisfaction about their work, as alleged, for the purposes of extension of their contract of service, this Court does not find any right being conferred in favour of the petitioners. That apart, term of agreement has already expired on 28/02/2011; and this Court finds no case for entertaining the petition as prayed for in exercise of jurisdiction U/Art.226 of the Constitution.

Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, in case of any fresh appointments if made, it is expected from the authority to consider cases of petitioners, as well in accordance with law.

(Ajay Rastogi), J.

K.Khatri/p2/ 5969CW2011Aug1-Dsp.do