This order alongside Smt. Raju Devi disposes of the writ petition by directing respondents to continue petitioners on duty as teachers, relying on Supreme Court guidance to settle their cause of action.
Petition dismissed in view of relying on Munna Ram and Smt. Raju Devi judgments.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ No. 2661/2011
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Inderjeet Yadav. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Khet Singh.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order
17/12/2018
It is submitted by learned counsel for the parties that the issue raised in the present writ petition is covered by judgment in the case of Smt. Raju Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2685/2011, decided on 7.3.2018, which in turn has relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Munna Ram & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: Civil Appeal
(2 of 3)
[CW-2661/2011]
No.7169/2014, decided on 8.2.2018 and, therefore, the present writ petition may be decided in terms of the said judgments.
In the case of Munna Ram (supra), it was directed by Hon’ble Supreme Court as under:-
“3. Accordingly, these appeals are disposed of with a direction to the State to continue the service of the appellants as Teachers Grade III (General), treating them to have been validly selected and appointed with effect from 13.08.2013, the date on which this appeal (by special leave) was filed, for all purposes. 4. We make it clear that this Judgment is passed only in the peculiar facts of this case and the benefit is confined only to the appellants before this Court, since they are the only people who have been continuing litigation before this Court. We also make it clear that in case any such teachers have been pursuing their litigation in the High Court and in case such teachers are continuing on duty, it will be open to the High Court to give a quietus to the litigation by following this Judgment, limiting the benefit only to the appellants before the High Court. No costs.”
Whereafter in the case of Smt. Raju Devi (supra), it was directed as under:-
In light of the above two judgments and the fact that by order dated 28.3.2011, interim order was granted in favour of the
(3 of 3)
[CW-2661/2011]
petitioner, it is deemed appropriate to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner on duty as his cause of action stands settled in view of judgments in the case of Munna Ram (supra) & Smt. Raju Devi (supra).
The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
91-Sumit/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner teachers should continue on duty in light of the Supreme Court judgment in Munna Ram and High Court judgment in Smt. Raju Devi.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Smt. Raju Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Relied on¶16
Smt. Raju Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2685/2011
Munna Ram & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Relied on¶16
Munna Ram & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: Civil Appeal No.7169/2014
Balu Ram
Mukesh Kumar Saini
Smt. Sunita Moond
State of Rajasthan
Director, Primary Education, Bikaner
RPSC, Ajmer
Arun Bhansali
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
