SAW / 20 / 2020 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS DINESH SINGH BITHU) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/03/2021 Respondent was denied appointment after selection to the post of Constable, as he was involved in a criminal case and his acquittal in that case was not considered honorable acquittal-Appeal against order by Single Judge wherein appellants were directed to accord appointment to respondent-Held-If a person is acquitted of charges for want of evidence; it would not necessarily lead to an inference that acquittal of the person by the court of competent jurisdiction is not honorable-Appeal dismissed
2
CRLRF / 1 / 2020 (NATHU RAM VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/02/2021 What would be the nature of an offence (whether cognizable or non-cognizable) punishable by imprisonment which “may extend to three years”-Held-For determination of nature of offence, maximum punishment that may be awarded for that particular offence is relevant and not minimum sentence-Offences under laws other than IPC punishable with imprisonment which “may extend to three years” shall fall within classification II under Part II of First Schedule CrPC and shall be cognizable and non-bailable.
3
SAW / 1499 / 2019 (PRADEEP JANGIR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/02/2021 Eligibility for recruitment to post of Teacher Gr.III (Level II) (English) was graduation or equivalent qualification with English as optional subject-Appellants did not have English as an optional subject in their graduation-However, they possessed Post Graduation in English-Held-A candidate must possess the requisite qualification statutorily prescribed and possession of higher qualification would not necessarily make a candidate eligible for recruitment to the post concerned-Appeal dismissed.
4
SAW / 219 / 2020 (SUREKHA RANA VS RAJASTHAN SUBORDINATE AND MINISTERIAL SERVICE SELECTION BOARD,) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/02/2021 Eligibility for recruitment to PTI Gr.III was a degree of B.P.Ed., C.P.Ed. or D.P.Ed-Appellant did not have prescribed qualifications but had M.P.Ed.-Appellant initially selected but not appointed for lack of prescribed qualification-Held-Court cannot permit inclusion of any qualification other than the eligibility qualification prescribed under statutory rules-Assumption that M.P.Ed. being a higher qualification, fulfills the requirement of lower qualification, is incorrect-Appeal dismissed.
5
CRLMB / 861 / 2021 (KHET SINGH VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 25/01/2021 Bail application of co-accused was accepted by High Court however, inspite of High Court’s order, bail application of other accused was rejected by Subordinate Court. Held-It is expected from all Subordinate Courts that where similarly situated co-accused has been granted bail by High Court and bail application of other accused comes up for consideration, High Court’s order shall be referred to while deciding such bail application and shall be followed unless distinguishable features exist.
1
CW / 13634 / 2020 (THE PROJECT DIRECTOR VS M/S ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LTD.) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/02/2021 Whether Arbitrator committed any illegality in permitting: (a) quantification of amount of interest, which was not calculated at time of filing claim petition, though same was claimed with interest till realization of amount; and (b) re-determination of fees of Tribunal basis the quantification-Held-Petitioners participated in arbitral proceedings even after order permitting quantification of interest and re-determination of fees-They are estopped from challenging the same-Petition dismissed.
2
CW / 18144 / 2015 (TEEKAM CHAND YADAV VS STATE P W D AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 15/02/2021 Petitioner selected to fill up remaining post after appointments were made as per first selection list-However; he was not appointed-Held-Vacancies which have been advertised have to be filled up from candidates who have applied under said advertisement. If part of selection is operated and remaining candidates who have cleared the examination are not appointed, a cogent reason must come forward from State for not filling up vacancies-Petition allowed-Petitioner to be considered for appointment.
3
CW / 15671 / 2013 (DR ALOK VYAS VS STATE TECHNICAL EDU ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 11/02/2021 State Government while applying the All India Council for Technical Education Regulations, 2010 made a distinction between the pay scales of Lecturers (Science and Humanities) and Lecturers (Engineering) holding a Masters Degree in their respective fields-Held-There is no distinction between the pay scales of Lecturers (Science & Humanities) and Lecturers (Engineering) holding a Masters Degree and both would be entitled to AGP of Rs.6000 as per the Regulations of 2010-Writ Petition allowed.
4
CW / 134 / 2018 (DR RAJVEER SHARMA VS STATE OF RAJ AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/01/2021 Whether a third child born to the petitioner on account of failure of a ligation operation can be said to come within the ambit of a memorandum dated 01.06.2017 to deny ACP to the petitioner for three years? Held- If a third child is born, without there being any deliberate intent; the circular would not come in way to deprive the concerned individual of the benefits which are available under the service rules. Writ petition allowed and respondents directed to grant ACP to the petitioner.
5
CW / 14143 / 2020 (SAMTA ANDOLAN SAMITI (REGD.) VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/12/2020 Prayer to set-aside the order whereby respondent No. 5 has been appointed/posted as Chief Secretary of State of Rajasthan-Held-Appointment/posting of a person is a service matter, and does not come within purview of public interest litigation. Challenge to an appointment to a public office can be made, when appointment has been made contrary to some statutory provisions or rules. Petitioners have no locus to file present petition. Thus, Writ Petition is not maintainable. Petition dismissed.
