Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rationale Sorted by: old Court: rajasthan Year: 1999 Page 1 of about 13 results (0.011 seconds)

Mar 18 1999 (HC)

Jaya Bhaduri and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-18-1999

Reported in : 1999(3)WLC723; 1999(1)WLN478

b.s. chauhan, j.1. in all these cases, the validity of the provision of rule 5 of the rajasthan compassionate appointment of dependents of deceased government. servants rules, 1996 (for short, 'the rules') has been challenged as being unconstitutional, ultra-vires and arbitrary.2. the relevant rules, for determination of the controversy, read as under:2 (c) 'dependent' means a spouse, son, unmarried or widowed daughter, adopted son/daughter legally adopted by the deceased government servant during his/her life-time and who were wholly dependent on the deceased government servant at the time of his/her death.rule-5 appointment subject to certain condition-when a government servant dies while in service, one of his/her dependents may be considered for appointment in government service subject to the condition that employment under these rules shall not be admissible in cases where the spouse or atleast one of the sons, unmarried daughters, adopted son/daughter of the deceased government servant is already employed on regular basis under the cental government/state government or statutory board, organisation or corporation owned or controlled by the central/state government at the time of death of the government servant.provided that this condition shall not apply where the widow seeks employment for herself.3. learned counsel for the petitioners in these cases have vehemently submitted that the rules have been framed to provide employment to one of the dependents of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 29 1999 (HC)

Shri Umed Higher Secondary School, Jodhpur Vs. State of Rajasthan and ...

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-29-1999

Reported in : AIR1999Raj370; 1999(3)WLC490; 1999(1)WLN420

orderb.s. chauhan, j. 1. the instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 18-2-1998 (annexure 4), by which the state government has taken over the school and appointed an administrator in exercise of its powers under section 10(1) of the rajasthan non-government educational institutions act, 1989 (hereinafter called 'the act').2. the main challenge by the petitioner management committee is that the administrator contemplated by section 10(1) of the act is an administrator to be appointed by the state government and, therefore, should necessarily be an official of the state government. the administrator cannot be a private person and even if a private person/society is appointed as such, the same must be in consonance with rules 19.23 and 24 of the rajasthan non-government educational institution (recognition. grand-in-aid and service conditions etc.) rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules, 1993').3. the facts and circumstances giving rise to the case are that petitioner a registered society --was responsible for managing a non governmental aided institution, namely, umed senior secondary school, jodhpur, (hereinafter called 'the school'), respondent no. 1 issued a show cause notice dated 17-4-1997 (annexure 1) to the president of the petitioner society under section10( 1) of the act and before any final order could be passed in pursuance of the said show cause notice, the election of the management committee took place and the present committee .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 30 1999 (HC)

Miss Veena Verma Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-30-1999

Reported in : 1999(3)WLC511; 1999(1)WLN319

v.s. kokje, j.1. the appellant in d.b. civil special appeal no. 410/98 who was a candidate for direct recruitment in the rajasthan higher judicial service ('rhjs' for short), and who stood 8th in the merit list of selection had filed a petition in this court claiming that she was entitled to be declared selected and be appointed or considered for appointment as, on a correct calculation, the vacancies for direct recruitment in the rhjs in accordance with the applicable rules came to 10 and not 7 and the petitioner being the 8th selected candidate was entitled to appointment against the post. the learned single judge dismissed the petition and this therefore, is an appeal by the appellant- petitioner under clause 18 of the rajasthan high court ordinance.2. an advertisement dated 31.10.1994 was published by the high court inviting applications for being considered for appointment in the rhjs against 7 vacancies including the two vacancies reserved for candidates belonging to scheduled castes and one vacancy for a candidate belonging to scheduled tribe. it was also stipulated in the advertisement that the number of posts could be increased.3. the recruitment to rhjs is governed by rajasthan higher judicial service rules 1969 ('the rules' for short), as amended from time to time. rule 6 of the rules provides for the strength of the service and also provides for varying the strength from time to time. rule 9 of the rules provides that the number of persons appointed to the service .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 11 1999 (HC)

Mohd. Sadiq Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-11-1999

Reported in : 1999CriLJ4043

ordern.n. mathur, j.1. this appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16-3-82 passed by the special judge, jodhpur convicting the accused appellant of offence under section 161,i.p.c. and section 5(2) of the prevention of corruption act and sentencing him to undergo 1 year's r.i. and to pay a fine of rs. 500/- and in default of payment to further undergo 1 month's s. i. on each count.2. the prosecution case is that on 6-9-76 pw/1 tejaram submitted a written complaint before the addl. superintendent of police (anti corruption), jaipur stating that he is a resident of village dabaria. after the death of his father he wanted to get 62 bigha of land mutated in his name and in the name of his 3 other brothers. he has submitted an application in that regard before the patwari, basroli. he had put the thumb impression thereon. he enquired about the progress in the said matter from the patwari on 4-9-76, on which, he told him that he will required to pay a sum of rs. 100/- as bribe for doing the said work. the patwari also told him that he may pay sum of rs. 50/- on 7-9-76 and rest of the amount later on. he did not disclose the name of the patwari saying that he does not remember the name. it appears that the said application was forwarded to dy. superintendent of police (anti corruption), ajmer for arranging the trap. the complainant pw/1 tejaram submitted the said application before the dy. superintendent of police (anti corruption), ajmer on 9-9-76. as tejaram was required to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 13 1999 (HC)

Dr. Bajrang Soni and anr. Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-13-1999

Reported in : AIR1999Raj365; 2000(1)WLC467

shivraj v. patil, c.j.1. these appeals are filed by the state of rajasthan and in-service candidates aggrieved by the common order dated 22-12-1998 passed by the learned single judge of this court in s.b. civil writ petitions nos. 4546/98 and 5224/98 (reported in air 1999 raj 187) only so far as it relates to quashing of the impugned order increasing reservation of seats from 25% to 50% for in-service candidates.2. for convenience, in this judgment, we shall refer to the parties as arrayed in the writ petition.3. briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are the following :--the petitioners having passed their m.b.b.s. examination and completed the internship, are eligible for admission to various post-graduate courses in different disciplines of medical science in different medical colleges in the state of rajasthan. they are aggrieved in regard to increase of reservation of seats for in-service candidates from 25% to 50% and decreasing of the qualifying marks for being selected to p.g. course from 50% to 33% in the pre-p.g. entrance examination in the year 1998 for admission to m.dvm.s./diploma course.4. the university of rajasthan (for short 'the university') had laid down the eligibility conditions for the said entrance test as contained in ordinance 278-e to 278-g. certain reservations were mentioned there in (i) 25% of the total seats(irrespective of other reservations made thereunder) were to be filled up as per the allocations made by the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 06 1999 (HC)

Ram Chandra Joshi and Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-06-1999

Reported in : 2000CriLJ1660; 2000(2)WLC739

orderb.s. chauhan, j.1. all these petitions have been filed against the order of removal of public prosecutors/additional public prosecutors/additional government advocates working in the high court of judicature for rajasthan at jodhpur and the district courts subordinate to it. as common questions of law are involved, all these petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by the common judgment. the facts and circumstances giving rise to these cases have variance to some extent and, thus, in brief, the facts of each case would be considered separately for disposal of the case, but first legal issues are being examined.2. at this stage it may be mentioned that petitioners had been appointed under the provisions of section 24 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (for short, 'cr.p.c.') read with the provisions of the rajasthan law and judicial department manual, 1952 (for short, 'the manual') and tenure of some of them had been extended for a definite or indefinite period.3. the main arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioners had been that once petitioners had been appointed, they cannot be removed without due process of law; rule 16(1) confers an unfettered and unbriddled power upon the government to remove the duly appointed public prosecutors without assigning any reason; any order, not supported by reasons, is liable to be quashed and, therefore, the impugned orders of removal of petitioners are bad and deserve to be quashed.4. in reply, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 24 1999 (HC)

Rajasthan State Electricity Board and ors. Vs. Sultan Mohd.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-24-1999

Reported in : (2000)IIILLJ691Raj; 2000(2)WLC22

n.n. mathur, j.1. admit.2. mr. m.r. singhvi waives service of notice on respondent in each appeal.3. with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, all these special appeals are being taken up for final hearing.4. the learned single judge by a common order dated february 23, 1999, following the decision of this court dated august 29, 1995 rendered in s.b. civil writ petition' no. 72/1986 'n.c. kutty v. r.s.e.b.', allowed each writ petition setting aside the letter dated january 7, 1984 of dy. director (award). the learned judge also directed to fix the petitioner's salary in terms of the arbitration award. hence these appeals.5. it appears that the technical workmen under the rajasthan state electricity board, hereinafter referred to as 'the board', raised demand for revising and fixing proper pay scale commensurating to their duties. an agreement was entered into between the employees union and the respondent board by which the dispute was referred to two arbitrators viz; s/shri prithvi singh and a.l. sancheti in accordance with the provisions of section 10-b(i) of the industrial disputes act, hereinafter referred to as 'the act'. following were the terms of reference:'(1) to decide the principles to regulate fixation/adjustment/promotion of all the technical workmen of the rajasthan state electricity board in respect to the following periods: (1) from april 1, 1968 to march 31, 1977, who have completed a continuous service of two years or more by march 31, 1977.( .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 30 1999 (HC)

Rajeev Rathore Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Nov-30-1999

Reported in : 2000(2)WLC63; 2000(2)WLN23

m.a.a. khan, j.1. these four petitions under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (the cr. p.c.) by rajiv rathore, petitioner, seek the cancellation and quashing of the relevant first information reports registered at the same or different police stations of jaipur city, against him and some others. as per desire and consent of the learned counsel for the parties these were heard together and are now disposed of by this combined order. the main order shall be placed on the record of s.b. cr. misc. petition no. 602 of 1999 and a copy thereof on the records of each of the remaining petitions.2. the relevant facts, in chronological order in accordance with the sequence of events and the day, time and place of the registration of the various firs at the same and other police stations, are these:3. on april 22, 1999 at 2.05 p.m. one nathu ram reported to the station house officer (sho) police station vidhan sabha, jaipur that on 20.4.1999 two unknown persons had taken his brother, kalu ram, with them in a white maruti zen car for taking the measurements of certain 'chokhats'; that on 21.4.1999 kalu ram informed the members of his family on telephone that he would return to the house at about 1.30 p.m.; that on that very day at about 11.00 p.m. he again informed the family that he would reach the house at about 10.00 a.m. in the next morning; that since kalu ram did not reach the house by that time the informant got worried and suspicious about his brother and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 13 1999 (HC)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sharda and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-13-1999

Reported in : 2001ACJ1936

v.s. kokje, j.1. this is an appeal by the insurance company on two points. the first point is as to whether the liability of the insurance company was unlimited, as taken by the motor accidents claims tribunal deciding the case and the second point is as to whether the quantum of compensation granted was exorbitant, in the circumstances of the case.2. on the first point, the learned counsel for the insurance company now feels satisfied that he has no case, as under the policy extra premium has been paid for making the liability of the insurance company unlimited. he, therefore, does not press the first point. so far as the second point is concerned, an insurance company can contest the case on merits of grant of compensation only in exceptional circumstances. this is an appeal arising out of an accident, the claim petition in respect of which was governed by the motor vehicles act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'). the grounds on which the insurance company could defend the claim petition were limited and on the point of quantum of compensation the insurance company could not contest the case. section 110-c(2-a) of the act provided that where, in the course of any inquiry, the claims tribunal is satisfied that-(i) there is collusion between the person making the claim and the person against whom the claim is made, or (ii) the person against whom the claim is made has failed to contest the claim, the tribunal may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, direct .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 13 1999 (HC)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sharda and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-13-1999

Reported in : 2(2000)ACC648; 2000(2)WLC132

v.s. kokje, j.1. this is an appeal by the insurance company on two points. the first point is as to whether the liability of the insurance company was unlimited, as taken by the motor accident claims tribunal deciding the case and the second point is as to whether the quantum of compensation granted was exorbitant, in the circumstances of the case.2. on the first point, the learned counsel for the insurance company now feel satisfied that he has no case, as under the policy extra premium has been paid for making the liability of the insurance company unlimited. he, therefore, does not press the first point. so far as the second point is concerned, an insurance company can contest the case on merits of grant of compensation only in exceptional circumstances. this is an appeal arising out of an accident, the claim petition in respect of which was governed by the motor vehicles act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'). the ground on which the insurance company could defend the claim petition were limited and on the point of quantum of compensation the insurance company could not contest the case. section 110-c(2-a) of the act provided that where, in the course of any inquiry, the claims tribunal is satisfied that--(i) there is collusion between the person making the claim and the person against whom the claim is made, or (ii) the person against whom the claim is made has failed to contest the claim, the tribunal may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, direct .....

Tag this Judgment!


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