This writ petition concerned the continuation of service for a petitioner employed by the Sanskrit Education Department. The Court held that the controversy was settled by earlier precedents and directed the State to continue the petitioner on duty.
Directing the respondents to continue the petitioner on duty with all consequential benefits.
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 JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ No. 2970/2011
Arjun Puri S/o Shri Ghaver Puri, aged about 26 years, R/c C/457, Saraswati Nagar, Basni Ist Phase, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : AK Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Khet Singh Mr. BL Bhati
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment / Order
01/08/2018
“1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the following reliefs :-
“a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, order Annex.8 dated 17.3.2011 passed by the Director, Sanskrit Education
[CW-2970/2011]
(2 of 4)
cancelling the appointment of the petitioner as well as order Annex.9 dated 23.3.2011 passed by the Headmaster relieving her may kindly be declared illegal, arbitrary and unjust and same may kindly be quashed and set aside.
b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to continue the petitioner in service on the post of Upper Primary Teacher Gr.III (Gen.), Sanskrit Education with all consequential benefits as if the orders impugned were never passed against her;
c) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon`ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.
d) Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs.”
2. Counsel for the parties are in agreement that the controversy involved in this petition stands settled in view of judgment passed by Hon`ble Supreme Court the case of Munna Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (Civil Appeal No.7169 of 2014, decided on 08.2.2018), which is reproduced as under :-
1. The appellants have been working under the respondent-State pursuant to a selection conducted in the year 2008 as Teacher Grade III (General). The merit list was revised pursuant to an order dated 17.08.2010 passed by the High Court since the High Court found that the marks as awarded by the Selection Committee for one of the questions was not correct. Therefore, the appellants before the High Court were directed to be granted the benefit of the answer to that question. In the process of revision of the merit list, accordingly, the appellants were sought to be ousted. Their attempt before the High Court was in vain and thus, they are before this Court.
[CW-2970/2011]
(3 of 4)
2. Though the learned counsel appearing for the State has made several persuasive submissions, we are of the view, taking note of the fact that there are admittedly several vacancies in the State in the post of Teacher Grade-III (General) and taking further note of the fact that the appellants have been continuing even as on today to work in the same post and taking note of the fact that there are only 18 of them before this Court, this is a fit case for us to invoke our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and give a quietus to the whole litigation.
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. “
3. In light of the aforesaid submission and looking into the fact that the petitioner is pursuing her case before this Court since 28.3.2011 and has been given protection vide order dated 28.3.2011, this Court deems it just and proper to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner on duty as her cause of action stands settled in
[CW-2970/2011]
(4 of 4)
view of the aforementioned judgment”.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J.
sudheer
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is directed to continue on duty in view of the judgment in Smt. Raju Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan.
Whether the cause of action of the petitioner is settled by the Supreme Court judgment in Munna Ram & Ors.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Smt. Raju Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Relied on¶15
Smt. Raju Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2685/2011), decided on 07.3.2018
Munna Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Relied on¶24
Munna Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (Civil Appeal No.7169 of 2014, decided on 08.08.2018)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Arjun Puri
State of Rajasthan through Secretary Education and Sanskrit Education Department
The Director, Sanskrit Education Department
The Rajasthan Public Service Commission
Dr. Justice Pushendra Singh Bhati
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
