Allowed

Pramod Bharti v. State of Raj. and Ors.

Rajasthan HC5 Aug 2022CW/9523/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge allowed a writ petition seeking quashing of an order terminating the petitioner's services on grounds of insufficient teaching experience and low marks. The court relied on a previous judgment involving similarly situated employees.

What did the court decide?

The impugned termination order dated 05.10.2010 was quashed, and the respondents were directed to extend all consequential benefits to the petitioner.

Pramod Bharti Vs State of Raj. and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9523/2010

Pramod Bharti

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Raj. and Ors.

¶7

----Respondents

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. V.R. Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa, AGC with Mr. G.S. Chouhan

¶9

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶10

Order

¶11

05/08/2022

¶12

The present writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 05.10.2010 whereby the services of the petitioner were sought to be terminated on the ground that he did not possess the teaching experience of five years prior to his obtaining the qualification of B.Ed and secondly that he obtained marks less than the cut-off marks required for the OBC Category.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that three similarly situated employees namely Lalit Kumar Dave, Rajveer Singh and Malam Singh had, against the order of their termination preferred writ petitions before this Court being S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos.6908/2017, 6909/2017 & 6910/2017 which were allowed vide order dated 04.12.2017. Learned counsel submitted that the present petitioner being a similarly situated employee from all aspects, his writ petition too deserves to be allowed in term of Lalit Kumar Dave’s judgment.

¶14

(2 of 2)

¶15

[CW-9523/2010]

¶16

It is clear on record that Lalit Kumar Dave and others were also appointed vide the same appointment order dated 22.07.2010 vide which the petitioner was accorded appointment. They were also terminated on the same ground i.e. having marks below the cut-off marks as prescribed for the general category. The said termination order of those persons was quashed and set aside vide order dated 04.12.2017. Therefore, the present case is squarely covered by Lalit Kumar Dave’s case (supra).

¶17

Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to refute the above factual and legal aspect.

¶18

In view of the ratio as laid down in Lalit Kumar Dave’s case (supra) the present writ petition is allowed.

¶19

The impugned order dated 05.10.2010 is quashed and as the petitioner is continuing in service by virtue of the interim order dated 20.10.2010, the respondents are directed to extend all the consequential benefits to him.

¶20

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶21

22-Dharmendra/-

Pramod Bharti v. State of Raj. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Bharti v. State of Raj. 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

Suresh Kumar Garg Vs State of Rajasthan

Chagen Lal Panwar Vs State of Rajasthan

Sugan Dan Vs Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Andanr

Asha Bijarniya Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahendra Singh Rajput Vs State of Rajasthan

Mukesh Kumar Choudhary Vs the State of Rajasthan