Allowed

Ajay Kumar Sharma v. Secretary,Shri Lbs Edu.Society and Ors.

Rajasthan HC1 Apr 2010WRW/36/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed a writ petition without addressing the petitioner's grounds, labeling it an improper remedy. The Division Bench held this constituted a non-speaking order and allowed the review petition to set aside the dismissal, directing the writ petition to be heard on merits.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 17.4.2000 set aside; Writ Petition No.1001/2000 directed to be heard on merits.

Ajay Kumar Sharma Vs Secretary,Shri Lbs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

S.B. Civil Review Petition No.36/2002 Ajay Kumar vs

¶3

Secretary, LBS, School & Ors.

¶4

Date of Order: 1.4.2010

¶5

HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA,J .

¶6

Mr.RK Soni, for the petitioner. Mr.MC Bhoot, for the respondents.

¶7

<><><>

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶9

The petitioner has raised several grounds while arguing the SBCWP No.1001/2000, but by order dated 17.4.2000 after recording the fact that the petitioner argued several grounds the learned Single Judge observed that “the services of the petitioner who is employed on probation have been terminated after due notice. The genuineness of the termination has been examined by the Tribunal which is final authority on all issues of fact. In such circumstances, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not a proper remedy. Hence, the petition is rejected.”

¶10

The petitioner challenged the said order of the learned Single Judge dated 17.4.2000 by preferring the DBSAW No.521/2000 which was disposed of by order dated 11.9.2000 after taking note of the fact that petitioner raised the ground of breach of Rule 30(b) of the Rajasthan NonGovernment Educational Institution Rules, 1993 and Division Bench observed that petitioner should approach the learned Single Judge by way of review. Then the petitioner

¶11

¶12

preferred this review petition and stated that petitioner raised several grounds and for one of the ground referred above, relied upon the judgment of this court wherein according to the petitioner it has been held that the breach of Rule 13(b) of the Rules of 1993 vitiated the action of the respondents and learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that there are number of other legal grounds also, which may even vitiate the finding of fact recorded by the learned tribunal.

¶13

Learned counsel Sh. MC Bhoot appearing for the respondent no.1 submitted that learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner as the petitioner's services was terminated because of the conduct of the petitioner.

¶14

I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It is clear from the order dated 17.4.2000 itself that several grounds were raised before the learned Single Judge by the learned counsel for the petitioner and those grounds neither have been considered nor have been rejected. The learned Single Judge observed that the writ petition is not proper remedy but without assigning any reason where the petitioner can challenge the order of the tribunal otherwise by filing the writ petition before this High Court. Since the petitioner's contention have not been considered by the learned Single Judge even after taking note of the fact that grounds have been raised by the

¶15

¶16

learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, the order is absolutely non-speaking order, therefore, deserves to be set aside by exercising the review power.

¶17

Consequently, the review petition is allowed, the order

¶18

dated 17.4.2000 is set aside, the writ petition no.1001/2000 will be heard on merits.

¶19

[PRAKASH TATIA], J .

¶20

cpgoyal/-

Ajay Kumar Sharma v. Secretary,Shri Lbs Edu.Society and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar Sharma v. Secretary,Shri Lbs Edu.Society and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kirti Tiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Poona Ram Vs C.M.D.,Raj. State Road Tran. Corp. and Ors.

Bhanwar Lal Vs Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitaran Nig. Ltd. and Ors.

Smt. Rohimo Vs State of Raj. and Ors.

Achal Singh Choudhary and Anr. Vs State of Raj. and Anr.

Hari Ram and Anr. Vs State of Raj. and Anr.