BHAGWAT SINGH NARUKA AND ORS v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS
CW/7240/2007 · 2026-01-06
Anand Sharma
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 17291 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 17291 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2026:RJ-JP:65] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7240/2007
1. Bhagwat Singh Naruka aged about 28 years, son of Shri Bihari Singh, resident of Behind STC, Bagar Ka Bas, Raghu Colony, Alwar.
2. Bajran Lal Meena, aged about 28 years, son of Shri Budh Ram resident of Village Bich Gaon, Tehsil Lakshmangarh, District Alwar
3. Pira Ram, aged about 32 years, son of Shri Mangi Lal, resident of Village Gandari, District Pali
4. Hamendra Tiwari, aged about 30 years, son of Shri Hanuman Sahai Sharma, resident of Village Gangapur City, Tehsil Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur ----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan through Secretary, Medical & Health Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Director, Medical & Health Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur
3. Additional Director (Admn), Medical & Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur
4. Union of India through Deputy Director (Blindness), Blind Section, Ministry of Health, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None Present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA
Order 06/01/2026
1. No one is present on behalf of the petitioners.
2. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents that admittedly, the petitioners were initially appointed for a limited period on contract basis, however, on account of their premature termination for the reasons stated in the termination
[2026:RJ-JP:65] (2 of 2) [CW-7240/2007]
order, the instant writ petition was filed way back in the year 2007, however, in the meantime, the original period of the contract has also expired, therefore, no cause of action for pursuing the instant writ petition survives.
3. There is nobody on behalf of the petitioners to controvert the aforesaid factual statement made by learned counsel for the respondents.
4. In view of above, the present Writ Petition is hereby dismissed.
(ANAND SHARMA),J Jatin /16