1 S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 214/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S. B. Civil Second Appeal No. 214/2009 State of Rajasthan & Others Versus Smt. Rajesh Kumari. Date of Order: 28.09.2010 Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kumar Jain,J. Ms. Priyanka Pareek, Deputy Government Counsel, for the appellants. Mr. Rajvir Sharma and Mr. K.C. Sharma, for the respondent. BY THE COURT:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Respondent has filed two applications, one under Section 151 CPC for giving appointment to her as a Prabodhak during pendency of the appeal and another, under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, for taking on record three documents dated 10.08.2008, 27.09.2008 and 10.08.2009 annexed with the application. 3. So far as first application under Section 151 CPC is concerned, I do not find any force in the application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. So far as second application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is concerned, I find that all 2 S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 214/2009 the three orders are relevant for the purpose of deciding the present controversy, therefore, I think it fit and proper to allow the application and the same is, accordingly, allowed. All the three documents dated 10.08.2008, 27.09.2008 and 10.08.2009 are taken on record. 5. On the request of learned counsel for the parties, the matter was heard finally. 6. Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction against the defendants-appellants in the Court of Civil Judge(Junior Division) No. 3, (South), Kota, which was partly allowed vide judgment and decree dated 26.09.2006. 7. Being aggrieved with the same, the plaintiff filed first appeal No. 9/2007, which was partly allowed by Additional District Judge No. 4, Kota vide judgment and decree dated 26.08.2008 and it was directed that plaintiff be treated as eligible for interview for recruitment of Prabodhak-2008 on the basis of her notional appointment as para-teacher since May, 2001. 8. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by first appellate court, defendants-appellants have preferred this second appeal under Section 100 CPC. 3 S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 214/2009 9. Learned counsel for the respondent referred the judgment of first appellate court and also the order dated 10.08.2009, passed by District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Kota and contended that the order of first appellate court has already been complied with by the appellants and plaintiff was treated as eligible for interview for recruitment on the post of Prabodhak-2008. The merit No. 450-A was assigned to the plaintiff in pursuance of judgment and decree dated 26.08.2008 passed by first appellate court. Subsequently, the plaintiff was interviewed, but she could not be appointed on the ground that there was no vacant post in OBC quota. Since impugned judgment and decree dated 26.08.2008 passed by first appellate court have already been complied with, therefore, this second appeal has become infructuous. 10. He further contended that subsequent order passed by District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Kota dated 10.08.2009 has further been challenged by the plaintiff- respondent, Smt. Rajesh Kumari in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12847/2009 before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which has also been disposed of vide order dated 30.04.2010. In these circumstances, the present 4 S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 214/2009 second appeal is liable to be dismissed as having become infructuous. 11. Aforesaid facts have not been disputed by leaned Deputy Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. 12. Since impugned judgment and decree dated 26.08.2008 has already been complied with by the appellants, which is also clear from order dated 10.08.2009 passed by District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Kota which has further been challenged by plaintiff-respondent, therefore, nothing remains for decision in the present second appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed as having become infructuous. 13. Consequently, second appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous. (Narendra Kumar Jain),J. Manoj, Item No.S.2.