Dismissed

Arun Bithu v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC20 May 2019SAW/270/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a special leave appeal, the High Court of Rajasthan in Jodhpur dismissed the appellant's review petition. The Court held that since the appellant was employed by a private firm, the termination of his services did not entail a public character, and thus Article 226 was not available for scrutiny.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the order of the learned Single Judge was affirmed.

Arun Bithu Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 270/2019

¶4

Arun Bithu S/o Shri Hanuman Dan Bithu, Aged About 36 Years, Resident House No. 2Nd B-1, Jai Narayan Vyas Colony, Bikaner.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Local Self, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

The Director, Department Of Local Bodies, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶9

The Project Director, Day-Lum, Local Self Department, Jaipur.

¶10

Shri Narayan Chopra, Mayor, Municipal Corporation, Bikaner.

¶11

Chief Executive Officer, Municipal Corporation, Bikaner. 6. T And M Services Consulting Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Director, T And M House, Kohinoor Complex, A Wind, New To Maharaja Hotel W.e. Highway, Dahisar (East), Mumbai. ----Respondents

¶12

For Appellant(s) : Mr.Pritam Joshi on behalf of Mr.Shree Kant Verma For Respondent(s) : -------------

¶13

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶14

Order

¶15

20/05/2019

¶16

The appellant is aggrieved by an order of the learned Single Judge who dismissed the writ petition holding that the remedy of Article 226 of the Constitution of India was not available, in the circumstances of the case.

¶17

The appellant was employed by the respondent No.6, a private firm, which rendered certain services to the Municipal

¶18

(2 of 2)

¶19

[SAW-270/2019]

¶20

Council, Bikaner. On the service of the termination letter to him, the appellant approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution which resulted in the impugned order.

¶21

This Court is of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be faulted; there are no circumstance to indicate that the functions performed with respect to the termination of the appellant’s/petitioner’s services, entailed a public character so as to call for the scrutiny of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

¶22

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

¶23

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶24

(S. RAVINDRA BHAT),CJ

¶25

7-Kshama Dixit/-

Arun Bithu v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Bithu v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Kumar Vs Sunita

Ramesh Kumar Choudhary Vs Rsrtc and Ors.

Anil Kumar Trivedi Vs State of Rajasthan

Jugal Kishor Ramawat Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Union of India Vs Smt. Ameena

Chhagan Lal Vs Union of India