0

There Is No Case Of As He Approached The Court After 13 Years: Patna High Court

Blog , , ,

Citation: CWJC No.17367 of 2019

Decided On: 31-10-2023

Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman

Introduction:

The petitioner submits that the grievances of the petitioner are very limited as the railway authorities have already issued an appointment letter and directed the petitioner to join on Class-IV post but the petitioner did not appear in the office for joining. Subsequently, the petitioner has filed CWJC No. 13981/2016 which was disposed.

Facts:

The writ was dismissed with a direction to the concerned authority that if the petitioners except Mukesh Kumar file application before the competent authority along with supportive documents for appointment on Group-C/Group-D post in Indian Railway in lieu of acquisition of their lands for construction of Road-cum-Railway Bridge over river Ganga near Digha-Sonepur, the authority shall consider their case and pass order within four months from the date of filing of such representation. Mukesh Kumar is concerned, his case was considered by the competent authority and appointment letter was issued for appointment but the petitioner did not join on Group-C/Group-D post on account of illness of his mother, who consequently died of cancer but no order on his petition for extension of the period of his joining was passed.

The specific direction was given to the authority to consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically and pass an order in accordance with law within four months. In pursuance to the same, the petitioner has been communicated a letter dated 03.06.2019, as contained in Annexure-R/E rejecting his claim being time-barred, but the authority while rejecting his claim did not consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically in the light of the direction of the Hon’ble Court.

Learned counsel for the Union of India representing Railways submits that the claim of the petitioner for employment was in lieu of acquisition of his land for construction of Road-cum-Railway Bridge over river Ganga near Digha-Sonepur has already been considered by the Railway authority and the same has been communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 20.06.2007 which is Annexure R/A in which direction was made to him to report to the office of the Divisional Rail Manager, Personal Sonepur on 12.07.2007 along with two passport size photographs for his appointment in Grade-D category but the petitioner did not opt to appear.

Petitioner has requested for extension of time for reporting till 2009 on the grounds of his completion of engineering course. Subsequently, the Railway authority informed the petitioner vide letter dated 26.09.2007 to receive an appointment letter forthwith as according to the guidelines issued by the Rail Parishad/ Headquarter, he has to join within two years, but petitioner did not join. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a writ petition in the year 2018 in which the Hon’ble Court was pleased to pass the order

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

It transpires to the Court that the petitioner was entitled to appointment and was called for joining in the year 2007 itself. The petitioner was also informed that the said appointment letter is valid for two years only, but he demanded employment after the lapse of 13 years. the petitioner is a graduate engineer from the mechanical branch and has completed his study in B.Sc. Engineering in the years 2010. In this background that the petitioner is a graduate engineer and is interested to join on the Group-D post for which an offer was made to him to join 13 years back including an extension of two years from the date of the letter of joining issued in the year 2007, this Court was in the view that the petitioner has no case.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By : Sushant Kumar Sharma

click here to view judgement

0

Balancing Equity and Fairness: Court Quashes Harsh Penalty, Directs Reconsideration in Landmark Decision: Rajasthan High Court

Blog , , ,

Title: Shashi Bala Meena vs Punjab National Bank

Citation: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7612/2015

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Decided on: 24/05/23

Introduction:

The petitioner has filed an instant petition seeking the court’s acceptance and allowance of the writ petition. The prayer includes a request for the court to quash and set aside certain orders, reinstate the petitioner in service with consequential benefits and interest, and any other order deemed fit by the Hon’ble Court. Additionally, the petitioner seeks the award of costs in their favor.

Facts:

The petitioner, a Senior Manager at a bank, faced multiple transfers during her service and was granted three promotions with an unblemished record. Following a transfer to Alwar Branch, she sought retention due to family circumstances. Despite requests and applications for medical leave, the petitioner was relieved to join Alwar Branch. Subsequently, an expedited enquiry was initiated, and the petitioner, suffering from Arthritis, was compelled to join. The enquiry concluded swiftly, resulting in an order of compulsory retirement. The petitioner alleges a hasty and unfair process, citing medical conditions and unavailed privilege leave. The respondents argue willful absence and alternative remedies. The court emphasizes an employee’s duty to obey transfer orders but acknowledges the need for proportionality in disciplinary action, highlighting the recognized doctrine of proportionality in judicial review.

Judgement analysis:

The court, invoking the principle of rendering equitable justice, acknowledges the need for compelling circumstances to interfere with a penalty’s quantum. Emphasizing fair play in administrative decisions, the judgment considers the impact on both the employee and management, recognizing the gravity of imposing punishment affecting livelihoods. In light of the petitioner’s 25 years of unblemished service, unavailed privilege leaves, and the circumstances surrounding her transfer and subsequent compulsory retirement, the court deems the punishment harsh. It rejects cited judgments as inapplicable to this case.

Applying the doctrine of proportionality, the court quashes the impugned orders and remits the matter for reconsideration of the punishment within three months. While allowing the petition in part, the court directs the petitioner’s reinstatement without back wages from the date of compulsory retirement.

The judgment places the onus on the appropriate authority to reassess the penalty, emphasizing a balanced approach that considers the specific circumstances of the case. The decision reflects a nuanced understanding of administrative decisions affecting individuals’ livelihoods.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By: Gauri Joshi

Click here to view judgement

0

Rajasthan High Court: Court Upholds Candidate’s Right to Marks, Orders Immediate Appointment with Full Benefits

Blog , , ,

Title: Sita Ram Jakhar vs State of Rajasthan

Citation: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17796/ 2022

Coram: Justice Sudesh Bansal

Decided on: 14/03/2023.

Introduction:

The case revolves around the recruitment process initiated by the Directorate, Home Defence, Rajasthan, through an advertisement dated 18.11.2021. The recruitment is for various posts, including Constable General, Constable Bigular, Constable Drumman, and Constable Driver in different districts. The matter is under consideration by the court, with both parties presenting their arguments, and the court has examined the available material on record.

Facts:

The petitioner applied for the post of Constable General in the Rajasthan Home Guard Subordinate Service and claimed entitlement to 5 marks for a computer aptitude certificate (RS-CIT). Although he possessed the certificate, the petitioner alleged that he was not awarded the marks during the selection process, resulting in his exclusion from the final merit list.

In response to the writ petition, the respondents argued that the petitioner failed to produce the RS-CIT certificate during the document’s verification stage. The court, acknowledging the unique circumstances, allowed the petitioner to undergo a fresh document verification process. Subsequently, the Selection Board examined the RS-CIT certificate on January 12, 2023, and provisionally awarded 5 marks to the petitioner. The Board concluded that the addition of these marks placed the petitioner above the last cutoff marks in the OBC (NCL) category, making him eligible for inclusion in the final selection list.

The respondents, in their reply, mentioned that the results had already been declared, and candidates from the final merit list had received appointments. However, during the court proceedings, a representative of the Rajasthan Home Guard Service acknowledged that there was an opportunity to consider the petitioner for appointment.

The court, considering the petitioner’s eligibility for the marks and the peculiar circumstances, referred to a recent Supreme Court judgment (Food Corporation of India Vs. Rimjhim) to address the issue. The judgment discussed the importance of considering a candidate’s eligibility despite procedural lapses, emphasizing the essence of justice in such matters.

Judgement analysis:

The court, applying the legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court, acknowledged that the petitioner possessed the necessary computer aptitude qualification (RS-CIT) and was eligible for 5 marks. The court considered the proceedings of the Selection Board, which confirmed the petitioner’s eligibility and awarded him the additional marks. The court concluded that the petitioner, with the extra marks, surpassed the last cutoff in the final merit list for the Constable General Non-TSP post in the OBC (NCL) category.

As a result, the court directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the vacant Constable General Non-TSP position in the OBC (NCL) category immediately. The petitioner was granted all service benefits, including seniority and increments, notionally from the date of the appointment. Additionally, the petitioner was entitled to actual and monetary benefits from the date of the appointment. The writ petition was allowed accordingly, and all related applications were disposed of.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By: Gauri Joshi

Click here to view judgement

0
rajasthan high court

Judicial Disapproval: Court Slams Deceptive Conduct, Imposes Cost, and Orders Relief Allocation in Writ Petition Controversy

Blog , , ,

Title: Geeta Devi vs State Of Rajasthan

Citation: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 620/2020

Coram: JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Decided on: 28/03/2023.

Introduction:

The respondent, Municipal Board, Bilara, has filed the current application seeking the recall of the interim order dated 14.01.2020 issued by the court. The nature of the case or the specific circumstances leading to the interim order .

Facts:

In this case, the respondent, Municipal Board, Bilara, has filed an application seeking the recall of an interim order dated 14.01.2020. During the argument, the respondent’s counsel highlighted that the petitioner, along with four others, had previously filed a joint writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13679/2019), which was listed on 13.09.2019. The court notes that a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court had considered the petitioner’s case on that day and issued notices without granting any interim order. The respondent’s counsel argued that on the same day, two other cases challenging the same impugned order were listed, and detailed orders with interim relief were granted. However, in the petitioner’s case, only notices were ordered. The respondent’s counsel further brought to the court’s attention that the petitioner(s) withdrew the earlier writ petition on 10.01.2020 without informing the respondent’s counsel. In response, the petitioner’s counsel argued that there was no concealment, as the petitioner had mentioned the filing and withdrawal of the earlier writ petition in the current application.

To verify the claims, the court examined the records of the earlier writ petitions and found that the petitioner’s case was listed on 13.09.2019, and notices were issued without granting interim relief. The court expressed shock at the petitioner’s actions, noting that after failing to obtain an interim order in the first writ petition, the petitioner withdrew it on the same day she learned about an interim order in another similar case (SBCWP No.15048/2019).

The court criticized the petitioner for not disclosing the withdrawal of the earlier writ petition and filing the current one with the same assertions. It emphasized that withdrawing and filing a fresh writ petition without a material change in circumstances is impermissible in law. The court found that there was no change in facts or pleadings between the two petitions and criticized the petitioner for attempting to mislead the court.

Judgement analysis:

In this judgment, the court expresses strong disapproval of the petitioner’s conduct and her counsel, stating that not only should the interim order be recalled, but the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. The court cites an attempt to mislead the court and invokes the principle of res judicata, arguing that the petitioner, by withdrawing and filing a fresh petition without a material change in circumstances, has acted improperly.

The court emphasizes that the petitioner, by misleading the court, has secured an interim order and continued in services for over three years, causing an illegal burden on the public exchequer. As a consequence, the court imposes a cost of ₹50,000 on the petitioner, payable to the respondent Municipal Board, Bilara. The Board is granted the authority to recover this cost from the petitioner’s deducted or deposited amount in accordance with the law. The recovered amount is directed to be utilized by the Board for the construction or renovation of public toilets for females. Furthermore, the court dismisses the writ petition and the stay petition. While expressing displeasure about the conduct of the learned counsel, the court refrains from taking any action against them, expressing hope that they would exercise caution in the future.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By: Gauri Joshi

Click here to view full judgement

0

Land Dispute Resolved: Court Upholds BOR Decision, Emphasizes Legal Precedents and Rejects Petitioner’s Claims Under Article 227

Blog , , , ,

Title: Amar Chand S/o Moolchand and ORS. Vs State of Rajasthan and ORS.

Citation: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9798/2016

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Decided on: 29/03/2023.

Introduction:

The current petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order dated 29.06.2016, issued by the Board of Revenue (BOR) Ajmer in Revision/6763/2011. This order favored the respondents in their revision petition. The case revolves around Mutation Entry No. 192 dated 20.04.2002, issued by the Gram Panchayat in Sandeda, Tehsil Peeplu, District Tonk

Facts:

The current legal matter involves a dispute over a piece of land measuring 29 Bigas 11 Biswa, claimed by both the petitioners and respondents. The petitioners argue that the land belonged to their ancestors, presenting evidence to support their claim. The legal proceedings include an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Piplu, Tonk, which was initially allowed, leading to a remittance of the case to the Tehsildar for fresh consideration. Subsequent appeals and revisions followed, with the Board of Revenue ultimately reversing the earlier decisions in favor of the respondents. The petitioners assert that the Board of Revenue’s decision was based on incomplete consideration, highlighting applications they filed indicating the revision’s ineffectiveness due to the successful challenge of the Tehsildar’s order. They also point out the death of some non-applicants, leading to the abatement of the revision.

In response, the respondents argue that the Civil Court’s decision in Suit No. 60/2003 validated their status as legal successors and upheld the validity of mutation entries. They contend that the orders challenged in the revision become irrelevant in light of the Civil Court’s findings. The respondents emphasize the sub judice nature of the matter before the Board of Revenue, downplaying the significance of the Tehsildar’s order and the mutation entry for legal rights.

The court, in considering the case under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, emphasizes the limited scope of interference and the need for sparing use of this jurisdiction. The judgment underscores that such powers are not meant to convert the High Court into an appellate authority but to ensure the subordinate courts adhere to the law. The court refers to precedents, including the principle that orders below are presumed justified if passed after due consideration of facts and materials on record.

Judgement analysis:

In this judgment analysis, the court addresses a dispute over a piece of land by considering the facts and legal arguments presented. The court notes that the Civil Suit No. 60/2003 for declaration was decided against the petitioners by the Trial Court, with specific issues related to the legal successor of the deceased Veerumal and the validity of mutation entries. The Board of Revenue (BOR) took this into account and concluded that once the Trial Court had decided these issues, the matter before the BOR was adjudicated. The court rejects the petitioner’s argument that the Tehsildar’s denovo investigation and fresh order should be considered. It cites legal precedents, emphasizing that mutation entries do not determine land title and are fiscal in nature. The court agrees with the BOR’s reliance on the Civil Court’s decision in Suit No. 60/2003, which addressed title and succession issues concerning Veerumal, and dismisses the significance of any subsequent order by the Tehsildar.

The judgment underscores that the BOR’s decision was well-reasoned, in accordance with legal principles, and did not violate natural justice. The court supports the BOR’s conclusion and finds no grounds for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits, and any pending applications are disposed of.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By: Gauri Joshi

Click here to view full judgement

1 2 3 … 5