Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 39 (RAJ)

Ashok Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

2001-01-11

K.S.RATHORE, V.S.KOKJE

body2001
JUDGMENT 1. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This appeal (DB Civil Spl. Appeal Writ No. 923/2000) and DB Civil Spl. Appeal Writ No. 1047/2000 are taken together for hearing as they arise out of the same judgment. 2. The appellant in appeal No. 1047/2000, Sri Chand was working on the substantive post of Vidhi Rachanakar in Law Department. On his selection for one post of Assistant Public Prosecutor, he left the post of Vidhi Rachnakar and joined the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor. Later on he changed his mind and wanted to go back on the post of Vidhi Rachanakar, contending that he should be deed to have retained lien on the post of Vidhi Rachanakar as he had not been confirmed on the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor. When the State Government did not agree with his contention, he filed the petition before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge by a detailed order, held that post of Assistant Public Prosecutor held by the appellant was a `substantive appointment' and therefore, his lien on the post of Vidhi Rachanakar stood terminated. The order dated 27.2.1999, issued by the Law Department relieving the appellant from the post of Vidhi Rachanakar also specifically stated that the lien of the appellant on the post of Vidhi Rachanakar stood terminated. 3. Having heard the learned counsel and having gone through the record, we agree with the learned Single Judge that the appellant had no lien on the post of Vidhi Rachanakar because his appointment on the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor was substantive appointment within the meaning of Rule 2(j) of the Rules of 1978 applicable to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor. 4. The next question arises in the appeal No. 1047/2000, filed by appellant Sri Chand, who is respondent No. 2 in the appeal No. 923/2000, filed by the appellant, Ashok Kumar Sharma, that while deciding the petition, the learned Single Judge has given a direction that no candidate belonging to general category should be appointed against the vacancy caused by the petitioner on the post of Vidhi Rachanakar. It is held that the appellant Sri Chand ceased to have lien on the post of Vidhi Rachanakar. There was no question of giving any further direction as there was no lien on the post of Vidhi Rachanakar. It is held that the appellant Sri Chand ceased to have lien on the post of Vidhi Rachanakar. There was no question of giving any further direction as there was no lien on the post of Vidhi Rachanakar. He had nothing to do with that happens to that vacancy. 5. We, therefore, allow the appeal No. 923/2000 and direction contained in Para 14 of the impugned order to the effect that respondent No. 1 shall not appoint any candidate belonging to general category from the reserve list against the vacancy caused by the petitioner, is set aside. The appeal No. 1047/2000 is dismissed.Order accordingly. *******