Dr. Supriya Sneha Lakra v. Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS), Bariatu, P.O. & P.S. Bariatu, Jharkhand
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
decided in this writ petition, thus, this writ petition is dismissed
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Considering the aforesaid fact, nothing remains to be decided in this writ petition, thus, this writ petition is dismissed.
Judgment
SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, Advocate For the RIMS : Mr. Sharon Toppo, Advocate …...... 03 /27.01.2026: Heard the learned counsel representing the petitioner and the learned counsel representing the respondents. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for the following
reliefs: a. For quashing that part of the advertisement no. 5770 dated 24.12.2021 (Annexure 4) by which one post of Tutor in Microbiology department has been reserved for EWS category candidate inspite of the fact that the said post was reserved for ST candidate in advertisement no. 3734 dated 06.10.2020 and remained unfilled on account of non-holding of interview. b. In the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents in Microbiology department reserved for ST candidate (as mentioned in Advertisement no. 3734 dated 06.10.2020 wherein the Walk- in-interview could not be held for non-availability of the interviewer). the post of Tutor
In paragraph no. 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS) a specific assertion has been made that the Advertisement No. 5770 dated 24.12.2021 which is the subject matter of this writ petition has already been cancelled by the RIMS by letter No. 386 dated 22.12.2022. Thereafter a fresh Advertisement bearing No. 4163 dated
12.09.2022 was floated for 2 posts of Senior Residents in the 1 Department of Microbiology in RIMS. The petitioner applied for one post reserved for Schedule Tribe (ST) candidate and the petitioner was considered for the said.
After going through the writ petition, I find that though nothing has been stated as to what happened after the case of the petitioner was considered pursuant subsequent advertisement but the fact remains that the original advertisement in which the petitioner is claiming appointment had already been replaced by the subsequent advertisement and the petitioner participated in the appointment process which was pursuant to the second advertisement, thus, it is clear that the petitioner has relinquished her claim which she made pursuant to the first advertisement.
Operative part
Considering the aforesaid fact, nothing remains to be decided in this writ petition, thus, this writ petition is dismissed.
27.01.2026 Tanuj/CP-2 Uploaded on 28.01.2026 (ANANDA SEN, J.) 2
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.