CaseMinister
CaseMinister › Judgments › Supreme Court › 2017 › State of Rajasthan v. Renu Bhati

State of Rajasthan v. Renu Bhati

Supreme Court of India · 27 March 2017

Court
Supreme Court of India
Decided
27 March 2017
Case no.
C.A. No. 4509 of 2017
Bench
Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi
Length
2 pages
Have a question about this judgment?

Ask our Legal AI about it on WhatsApp: free, no signup, in English or Hindi.

Write it first.

JUDGMENT

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4509 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.26361/2016] STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

RENU BHATI RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

KURIAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellants have approached this Court, aggrieved by the interim order passed by the High Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) NO.776 of 2015. The High Court has directed the appellants to re-employ the respondent in service as Coordinator, P.C.P.N.D.T., Jaisalmer against the vacant post available.

3. It is the case of the appellants that being an appointment on contract basis, re-employment can only be on contract basis and not on regular basis.

4. Having heard the learned counsel on both the sides, we do not feel it appropriate to consider the merits of the matter, since the writ petition is pending before the High Court. We, therefore, request the High Court to dispose of the writ petition expeditiously and preferably within three months from today.

5. Till the orders are passed, as above, the interim order granted by this Court, on 22.08.2016, will continue to operate.

JUDGMENT

6. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.

7. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

8. There shall be no orders as to costs.

.......................J. [KURIAN JOSEPH] .......................J. [R. BANUMATHI] NEW DELHI; MARCH 27, 2017.

Ask CaseMinister about State of Rajasthan v. Renu Bhati

Your 24×7 legal assistant on WhatsApp answers with the judgments that apply, in English or Hindi. No signup needed.

Questions about this judgment, or a case like it?Ask on WhatsApp