Dismissed

Poonam D/O Lal Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC16 Aug 2024SAW/486/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The D.B. Court dismissed this special appeal, upholding the Single Judge's finding that the respondent NGO is not 'State'. Consequently, a writ petition for reinstatement against the NGO does not lie.

What did the court decide?

Appeal against dismissal of writ petition is dismissed; stay application disposed of.

What the court decided

Poonam D/O Lal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:34743-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 486/2024

¶4

Poonam D/o Lal Singh D/o Lal Singh, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Ward 15, Village Buhana, Tehsil Buhana, District Jhunjhunu( Raj.)

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Women And Child Development Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan

¶8

The Commissioner, Director Of Women Empowerment, Jhalana Industrial Area, Jaipur, Rajasthan

¶9

Deputy Director, Women Empowerment Department, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan

¶10

President, Narayan Sewa Evam Vikas Sansthan, Bundi, Rajasthan

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Appellant(s) : Mr.Manish Lawaniya For Respondent(s) :

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶14

Order

¶15

16/08/2024

¶16

The appellant has preferred this appeal aggrieved by the order dated 24^th June, 2024 passed by learned Single Judge (Vacation Judge), whereby the writ petition, filed by the appellant, was dismissed.

¶17

It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was appointed by respondent No.4 - President, Narayan Sewa Evam Vikas Sansthan, Bundi and there was a minimum requirement in policy “Mahila Suraksha Evam Salaah Kendra

¶18

[2024:RJ-JP:34743-DB]

¶19

[SAW-486/2024]

¶20

(2 of 3)

¶21

Niyaman Evam Anudaan Yojna” that there has to be two female employees and one of amongst, was required to be a law graduate.

¶22

It is contended that respondent No.4 has terminated services of the appellant vide order dated 31^st May, 2024. Since sanction was given to respondent No.4 on the basis of availability of two employees, one of amongst, the present appellant, the respondent No.4 could not have relieved the appellant.

¶23

It is contended that since respondent No.4 – Sansthan was approved by the Committee consisting of District Collector, Superintendent of Police, Chief Judicial Magistrate and other functionaries of the State, any employee of the NGO could not have been removed without sanction of the authorities. 5. We have considered the contentions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through Mahila Suraksha Evam Salaah Kendra Niyaman Evam Anudaan Yojna (Amended) – 2017.

¶24

Admittedly, the appellant was an employee of respondent No.4 – Sansthan. The respondent No.4 is an NGO and cannot be treated as a State merely because it has been approved by functionaries of the State. As per “Mahila Suraksha Evam Salaah Kendra Viyaman Evam Anudaan Yojna”, the State is only giving subsidy to the NGOs for looking into grievances of the female.

¶25

Be that as it may, learned Single Judge has rightly held that respondent No.4 – Sansthan is not a State and a writ petition does not lie, as the prayer made in the writ petition was to direct respondent No.4 to reinstate the appellant into service.

¶26

[2024:RJ-JP:34743-DB]

¶27

[SAW-486/2024]

¶28

(3 of 3)

¶29

In view of the above, we do not find any force in the appeal, hence, the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶30

Stay application and/or other pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶31

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶32

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶33

Preeti Asopa /6

Poonam D/O Lal Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Poonam D/O Lal Singh 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

Sanjay Kumar S/O Shri Brij Mohan Goyal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Rajveer Singh Yadav S/O Sh. Sanwaliya Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Chetna Rani Daughter of Madan Singh Rawat Vs Maharishi Dayanand University Ajmer through Its Registrar

Deepak Kumar Shah S/O Shri Rashmikant Shah Vs Gabbula Laxmipati S/O Sh. Gopaiya

Deepak Kumar Shah S/O Shri Rashmikant Shah Vs Gabbula Laxmipati S/O Sh. Gopaiya

Pradeep Jangir S/O Shri Narsi Prasad Jangid Vs State of Rajasthan