[2025:RJ-JP:35085-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 422/2023 Mohan Lal Gupta S/o Late Sh. Mathura Prasad Gupta, Aged About 70 Years, R/o 32/122, Sector-3, Pratap Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur. ----Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Agriculture, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. General Manager Administration, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Pant Krishi Bhawan, Jaipur. 3. Manager Personnel And Administration, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board Pant Krishi Bhawan, Jaipur. 4. Secretary/ Administrator, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Pant Krishi Bhawan, Jaipur. 5. Prathvi Singh, Udc, Presently Posted At Office Ex.en, Division Medta City, Opp. Ganga Prasad Petrol Pump, Near Bas Stand, Medta City (Rajasthan) 6. Ashok Kumar Swami, Udc, Division Vidyut Rajasthan Rajya Krishi Marketing Board, Pant Krishi Bhawatn, Jaipur. 7. Gajanand Daroga, Udc, Establishment Branch, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Krishi Pant Bhawan, Jaipur. 8. Madhu Gupta, Ldc, Office Ex En. Division Sikar, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Krishi Upaj Mandi, Sikar (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Jain, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.K. Paliwal, Adv. & Mr. M.K. Dhakad, Adv. for Mr. R.A. Katta, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 01/09/2025 1. The challenge is to the order dated 27.01.2017 whereby the writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous and the order dated 12.12.2022 whereby the review petition was dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:35085-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-422/2023] 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order dated 27.01.2017 passed by learned Single Judge was challenged by preferring an appeal. The Division Bench vide order dated 06.11.2017 disposed of the appeal, however, permitted the appellant to withdraw the appeal with liberty to take appropriate steps available to him under law. 3. Learned counsel further submits that thereafter, he filed review petition before this Court and the learned Single Judge vide order dated 12.12.2022 after hearing both the parties, found that writ petitioner-appellant had already been superannuated and therefore, no interim protection was granted to writ petitioner- appellant during the pendency of the proceedings. Therefore, the cause of action for consideration of promotion does not survive and the writ petition has rightly been dismissed at having become infructuous. Learned counsel submits that writ petitioner-appellant had right of consideration for promotion for the post of UDC. 4. We find that it was not a case of writ petitioner-appellant that may be considered for promotion against the post prior to date of his superannuation. We also find that notices were served on the respondents. It is an admitted position that the learned Single Judge while deciding the review petition failed to appreciate the fact that the persons junior to writ petitioner-appellant had been promoted and thus, right of consideration of writ petitioner- appellant was denied. 5. When the case is taken up for hearing, the concerned writ petitioner-appellant may have attained the age of superannuation but his case is required to be considered on the day when he filed the writ petition. If persons junior to him were considered and [2025:RJ-JP:35085-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-422/2023] promoted, denying candidature of the writ petitioner-appellant, his petition cannot be treated as having become infructuous. The order passed by the learned Single Judge declaring his writ petition having become infructuous, therefore was not in consonance with law. 6. In review petition, the learned Single Judge has denied consideration of case of the writ petitioner-appellant solely on the ground that he had superannuated. It’s a settled principle of law that time taken in disposal of the case should not be taken into consideration for denying the relief which was available to an individual on the day when he had filed writ petition. It is thus, crystal clear that these facts are required to be taken into consideration. Of course, subsequent events may have relevance, but the same cannot be used for completely ousting the writ petitioner-appellant from the relief which he had claimed and existed on the date when the petition was filed. 7. The order dated 27.01.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge and the order dated 12.12.2022 passed in review petition, therefore, would not be sustainable in law and accordingly, the same are set aside. 8. The present Special Appeal (Writ) is accordingly, allowed. 9. The review petition is revived to its original number and to be heard on merits by the learned Single Judge. 10. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J HEENA/MAHIMA/71