GAURAV PAREEK S/O SUBHASH CHANDRA v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
CW/12642/2020 · 2025-07-01
Sudesh Bansal
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 25560 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 25560 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:24145] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12642/2020 Gaurav Pareek S/o Subhash Chandra, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Brahampuri Mohalla, Gram Dhod, Ward No. 04, Dhod. District Sikar, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Director, Social Justice And Empowerment Department, Ambedkar Bhawan G, 3/1, Rajmahal Residency Area, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Services Selection Board, State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur, Through Its Secretary.
4. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary/chairman, State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur - 302018, Rajasthan, India. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aamir Khan for Mr. Ram Pratap Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Bhardwaj for Mr. Amitosh Pareek, Dy. GC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 01/07/2025
1. Instant writ petition was filed by petitioner way back on 14.10.2020, seeking appointment on the post of Gram Sevak and Hospital Superintendent-Grade II, pursuant to the vacancies advertised on 29.06.2016.
[2025:RJ-JP:24145] (2 of 2) [CW-12642/2020]
2. Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-State submits that recruitment against the vacancies pursuant to the Advertisement dated 29.09.2016 has been over long back and thereafter fresh vacancies have also been advertised. In view of the submissions made by counsel for respondents, since the selection process is over, the prayer of counsel for petitioner cannot be considered and the relief prayed for has rendered infructuous.
3. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.
4. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J RONAK JAIMAN/46