CW 1243/96 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1243/96 Hari Prasad Gupta Versus State & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 03/11/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Ajeet Kumar Sharma for Mr. Manoj Sharma, for petitioner None present for respondents *** Instant petition has been filed by petitioner assailing orders dt.22nd May, 1995 [Ann.8 & Ann.9] passed by respondents whereby private respondents were promoted as UDC against the quota of 1981- 82. It will be pertinent to mention that orders were passed by the respondents in compliance of the decision of learned Service Appellate Tribunal dt.4th October, 1989. However, appeals preferred before this court were dismissed and Tribunal's order was finally upheld. It appears from the record that petitioner was apprehending his reversion from the post of UDC. But, later on holding review DPC, the petitioner has also been promoted as UDC against the vacancy of 1982-83 vide order dt.24th October, 2002 – xerox copy CW 1243/96 [2] whereof has been placed for perusal of this Court. In compliance thereto, orders dt.22nd May, 1995 [Ann.8 & Ann.9] passed by the respondents, are under challenge. Apart from it, it has been further averred by the respondents that post of UDC is to be filled 100% by promotion on the basis of seniority-cum- merit and in terms of R.15, incumbent who is graduate on completion of 3 yrs. experience and non-graduate with 5 yrs. became eligible for promotion and the petitioner who was promoted on ad hoc basis since was not eligible, was reverted to substantive post of LDC w.e.f. 30th November, 1981. It was further alleged by petitioner that both the private respondent nos.3 & 4 are junior to him. But, there is no documentary evidence on record in support thereof. This fact has been disputed by the respondents in Para 12 of their reply. No further counter has been filed by petitioner controverting Para 12 of the reply filed by the respondents. CW 1243/96 [3] As observed supra, since the petitioner has been promoted on recommendation of DPC against the quota of 1982-83 vide order dt.22nd October, 2002 and, as informed to this court, he has later on retired from service on attaining age of superannuation. On account of change in circumstances and so also reference made supra, present petition has become infructuous and accordingly, dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA1243CW96 3-11.doc