Skip to content


Gulabchand Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Writs Nos. 267 and 268 of 1978
Judge
Reported in1978(11)WLN227
AppellantGulabchand
RespondentState of Rajasthan and ors.
DispositionApplication dismissed
Cases ReferredShyam Behari Goyal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.
Excerpt:
.....was in (sic) of the rules. it was revoked after represent on and counter representation were considered. the tribunal was sastified that the petition had acqured no right on account of the promotion obtained by him in the aforesaid manner.;writ dismissed - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had..........tribunal or the authority appointed to take a decision. the petitioner had notice and himself had filed representations apprehending his reversion which was duly considered therefore, no complaint of the violation of the principles of natural juice, which are not any hand boiled rules can be judicial, in this case. as i further said in nemichand v. state of rajasthan 1977 wln 513 the rules of natural jus tie can not be stretched too far only to a often, the people who have done wrong, seek to invoke the rules of natural justice so as to avoid the consequences the earned counsel cited the board of high school and intermediate education up and ors. v. kumari chittra srivastava and ors. : [1970]3scr266 , in order to urge that it is the duty of the authority to give notice which was not.....
Judgment:

M.L. Jain, J.

1. The initial of the petitioner was in dentition the rues. It was invoked after repentant on and counter representation were considered. The tribunals was sati filed that the petitioner of the petitioner was revoked. An appeal was filed in the Rajasthan Civil service accused on right on accent of the promotion obtamed by him in the aforesaid manner

2. It appears that in the relevant Rules there was no provision for promotion of a lower division clerk as an upper division clerk in the basis of merit. The rules simply provided for promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit .Representations were filed against the promotion of the petitioner and a member of the board of Revenue while inspecting the office of the collector on 24th April 1977 also noticed that the promotion was irregular. The petitioner came to know of the representation and the also filed a representation on 17th October 1977 which were considered and of was thereafter that he was demoted as an LDC. The tubular called the relevant file from the office of the collector and found that on proper Committee as encaged in the Rules for promotion was framed. The file also contained a noting that the promotion was being made on an ungent and temporary basis which meant Tribunal therefore promotion that gave no right to the petitioner. The Tribunal therefore rejected the applier

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that there was no power in the collector to review the curlier appointment. Even if there was any case made out for review, then that could be done only by the Departmental promotion committee. The Tribunal was not justified on looking into the file of the department and base its decision upon the noting contained in the file. The tribunal should have decided the matter on the basis of the order of promotion and demotion and demotion. The demotion order was bad in law as it eas made without notice to the petitioner

4. I have considered these submissions. The tribunal being an appellate Authority was perfectly jounced in examining the concerned recosd in order to determine the mature of the appointment. It was noticed that on proper Department promotion committee was constituted & the promotion were only made on temporary basis. As held by main Dr. P.S. Gehlot v. State of Rajasthan 1977 WLN (UC) 384 the Government has got powers to testify its mistakes and it is not case of review or revision in the sense it in under stood within the meaning of the CPC. The retry entitle order of promotion was illegal and therefore, The petitioner cannot complain of his reversion observed in the aforesaid case, the Government in such cases is not required to act judicially or quasi judicially but is required only to act justly and fairly and cannot act arbitrarily or capriciously. That mans that, only rudiments of natural juice for a limited purpose in exercise of its functions that are not analytically judicial but administrative, are required to be observed. What particular rule of natural justice should he implied or what its contents should be in a given case, must depend to a great extent oil the facts and circumstances of each case, the frame work of the law, and the constitution and nature of the Tribunal or the authority appointed to take a decision. The petitioner had notice and himself had filed representations apprehending his reversion which was duly considered Therefore, no complaint of the violation of the principles of natural juice, which are not any hand boiled rules can be judicial, in this case. As I further said in Nemichand v. State of Rajasthan 1977 WLN 513 the rules of natural jus tie can not be stretched too far Only to a often, the people who have done wrong, seek to invoke the rules of natural justice so as to avoid the consequences The earned Counsel cited The Board of High School and Intermediate Education UP and Ors. v. Kumari Chittra Srivastava and Ors. : [1970]3SCR266 , in order to urge that it is the duty of the authority to give notice which was not dispensed with by the voluntary representation made by the petitioner. But that was a case of punitive action and has no application where the petitioner has no right to stay on the promotion which he got against the rules. Reliance was next placed on Shyam Behari Goyal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 1975 WLN (UC) 88. That was a case of termination of services and cannot he pressed into service by the petitioner. Even there, it was held that a confide and apparent mistake can always be allowed to be corrected. The initial order of the petitioner was in violation of the rules It was revoked after representation & counter representation were considered. The Tribunal was satisfied that the petitioner had acquired no right of account of the promotion obtained by him ii the aforesaid manner. I find no error of law of the jurisdiction in the impinged order of the learned Tribunal and this writ petition is dismissed summarily.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //