Partly allowed

Dinesh Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Rajasthan HC15 Apr 2015CW/2010/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of termination and regularization of services by applying the ratio of a preceding Division Bench order in State of Rajasthan vs. Giriraj Prasad Rawal, staying termination pending implementation of the earlier scheme.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of in terms of earlier Division Bench judgment; termination stayed pending completion of the one-month exercise.

Dinesh Kumar and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

( 1 )

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶4

ORDER

¶5

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2010/2015

¶6

Dinesh Kumar & ors. Vs. U.O.I. & ors.

¶7

Date of Order : : 15.04.2015

¶8

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR

¶9

Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, counsel for the petitioners. Mr. A.K. Rajvanshy, Asstt. Solicitor General of India, for the respondent No. 1

¶10

Mr. Rishabh Tayal on behalf of Mr. K.L. Thakur, Additional Advocate General, for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5

¶11

<><><><>

¶12

NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL) :-

¶13

The prayer in the present petition is to quash the termination order dated 13.02.2015 qua the petitioners and the petitioners be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits with a further prayer to regularize their services.

¶14

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the parties agree that the matter is squarely covered by the ratio of judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 517/2010 (State of Rajasthan & ors. Vs. Giriraj Prasad Rawal & ors.) decided on 01.10.2010 and the present petition can be

¶15

( 2 )

¶16

disposed of in the same terms.

¶17

The said appeal was disposed of vide Order dated

¶18

01.10.2010 with the following directions :-

¶19

“The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that the writpetitioners have no objection with respect to the qualification clause in the new scheme. In case, any incumbent is not possessing the requisite qualification, he may be discontinued and where it is possible to accommodate the incumbent due to the change in scheme with respect to one man and one woman candidate, the adjustment be made in the other education centre and services of only those candidates be discontinued who cannot be adjusted in the aforesaid manner.

¶20

To the recourse proposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, counsel for the appellants has no objection. Hence, the order of the Single Bench is accordingly modified to the extent that it would be open to the appellants to screen the candidates for the purpose of ensuring that they are holding the requisite qualification under the new scheme and adjustment of such incumbent shall be made at other center in order to ensure the composition as per the new scheme of one man and one woman candidate at one centre is maintained and services of only those candidates be discontinued who are not qualified or it is not possible to accommodate them. However, while doing so, no discrimination be made between the incumbents and rule of last come first go shall be adhered to.

¶21

Accordingly, the writ-appeals stand disposed of.

¶22

Stay application also stands disposed of.”

¶23

In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the parties, the present petition is disposed of in the same terms as D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 517/2010 as above. The said exercise be completed within one month

¶24

( 3 )

¶25

from today.

¶26

However, it is clarified that till such exercise in terms of the above order is complete, the services of the petitioners will not be terminated.

¶27

(NIRMALJIT KAUR), J.

¶28

Dinesh Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

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

Bhajan Lal Vs State of Raj. and Ors.

Smt. Savita Vs State and Ors.

Shakti Singh Vs District and Session Judge , Rajsamand

Narendra Kumar Jain and Ors. Vs State and Anr.

Rameshwar Lal Vs State and Ors.

Om Prakash Dadhich and Anr. Vs State and Ors.