Special appeals filed by the State and Santosh Kumari were disposed of by applying a prior Bench decision. The State's appeal was dismissed while Santosh Kumari's appeal was allowed for appointment consideration.
State's appeal dismissed; Santosh Kumari's appeal allowed with direction to consider her for Teacher Grade-III post.
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
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1022/2013
----Appellant
Versus
Smt. Raj Rani widow of Late Sh. Tek Chand, by caste Arora, resident of C/o Sangam Variety Store, Near OBC Bank (Old Dhan Mandi), Sri Vijaynagar, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 538/2017
Santosh Kumari daughter of Shri Ranjeet Singh, resident of Chak Kundalawala (6 LNP) via Udyog Vihar, Tehsil and District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
1.State Of Raj. Through the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj and Rural Development Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur
----Respondent
Mr. Himmat Gagga and Mr. SS Ladrecha, Government Advocate for their respective parties.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
07/09/2018
[SAW-1022/2013]
(2 of 2)
Learned counsel for the parties submits that the controversy involved in the present appeals stands covered by Bench decision of this Court dated 10.8.2018 rendered in DBSAW No.1122/2017 (Bharti Upadhayay Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.), which was allowed in the following terms:
“Accordingly, the present special appeal is allowed. The Order dated 22.11.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. We direct the respondents to consider the case of the appellant for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III after treating her as having obtained the requisite qualifying marks in the Senior Secondary Examination in case, she is otherwise eligible. The needful be done within one month of the receipt of certified copy of this order.”
The learned counsel for the parties submit that in view of the decision of this Court in Bharti Upadhayay’s case (supra), the DBSAW No.538/2017 (Santosh Kumari Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) deserves to be allowed and the appeal preferred by the State being DBSAW No.1022/2013 (State of Raj. & Ors. Vs. Smt. Raj Rani) deserves to be dismissed.
Accordingly, in the light of the decision of this court in Bharti Upadhayay’s case (supra), the DBSAW No.538/2017 (Santosh Kumari Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) is allowed in the terms indicated above and the appeal preferred by the State being DBSAW No.1022/2013 (State of Raj. & Ors. Vs. Smt. Raj Rani) is dismissed.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
(SANGEET LODHA),J
cpgoyal/56 and 57.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether appeals in DBSAW No.538/2017 and DBSAW No.1022/2013 are to be decided in light of the binding Bench decision in DBSAW No.1122/2017.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bharti Upadhayay Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.Applied¶27
DBSAW No.1122/2017 (Bharti Upadhayay Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.)
Smt. Raj Rani
State of Raj.
Sangeet Lodha
Dinesh Mehta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
