Allowed

Ramesh Chand Khateek v. State Education Departmentors

Rajasthan HC3 Jan 2014CW/12968/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a writ petition where the petitioner, selected for a PTI post, was denied joining due to a pending criminal case. Relying on a prior judgment, the Court ordered the respondents to allow the petitioner to join and considered him for seniority, while reserving action if the criminal case outcome is unfavorable.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to be allowed to join the services; seniority considered from the date of appointment; respondents at liberty to take action if the criminal case outcome is adverse.

Ramesh Chand Khateek Vs State Education Departmentors — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12968/2013 (Ramesh Chand Khateek Vs.The State of Rajasthan & Ors.)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶4

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12968/2013

¶5

(Ramesh Chand Khateek Vs.The State of Rajasthan & Ors.)

¶6

Date of Order : 03^rd January, 2014

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI

¶8

Mr.A.R.Meena, for the petitioner/s. Mr.M.F.Beig, Dy. Government Counsel.

¶9

BY THE COURT:

¶10

The petitioner was selected on the post of PTI. He was not allowed to join the post despite appointment order. It is precisely due to pendency of criminal case against them.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner/s submit that issue as to whether one can be denied joining due to pendency of criminal case has already been decided by this Court in the case of Chetram Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in SB Civil Writ Petition No.2227/2013 vide judgment dated 20.09.2013. The writ petition was allowed therein.

¶12

The factual position aforesaid has not been disputed by learned counsel for the respondent/s.

¶13

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel and find that similarly placed candidates have been given appointment by the respondents themselves and the case is otherwise covered by the judgment supra.

¶14

Accordingly, this writ petition is also allowed. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to join the services. The petitioner's candidature would be considered for seniority from the date of appointment. The respondents would, however, be at liberty to take action, if outcome of the criminal case comes against the petitioners.

¶15

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12968/2013 (Ramesh Chand Khateek Vs.The State of Rajasthan & Ors.)

¶16

¶17

This disposes of the stay application/s as well. The application for early

¶18

listing of the writ petition/s is allowed with the aforesaid.

¶19

(M.N. BHANDARI), J.

¶20

Preety, Jr.P.A.

¶21

All cor r ect ion s m ade in t h e j u d gm en t / or d er h av e been in cor por at ed in t h e j u dgm en t / or der bein g em ailed.

¶22

Pr eet y Asop a Jr .P.A.

Ramesh Chand Khateek v. State Education Departmentors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Chand Khateek v. State Education Departmentors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laduram Kumawat Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Raj Ex Service Forest and Anr. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Munishwar Lal Khurana Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Surendra Singh Choudhary Vs State and Ors.

Gulam Rasool Vs State of Raj andANR

Berishal Singh Vs U O I and Ors.