Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rationale Sorted by: recent Court: rajasthan Year: 1999 Page 2 of about 13 results (0.009 seconds)

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!

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 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!

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