Raju Vs. Nagar Nigam Jodhpur - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....appeal 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 not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - therefore to.....ordershethna, j. (1). both the special appeals are disposed of by this common order as they are arising out of the common judgment and order dated 22.9.00 passed by the learned single judge dismissing both the writ petitions no. 302/97 & 418/87 filed by the appellants petitioners.(2). an advertisement was issued for filing up the post of sweeper with certain terms and conditions. one of the condition is that only one person from the family shall be made eligible for the employment, if there is already one member of the family is in employment, preference should be given to those persons from whose family no one was employed. this condition was included in the advertisement as per the common judgment and order dated 21.10.92 passed by the learned single judge of this court in s.b. civil writ petition no. 1177/92 and other alike matters.(3). admittedly, there is more than one family member of the petitioners is in employment therefore they were not given appointment and those persons were preferred from those family where no one was employed. the same was challenged by way of two separate petitions which were dismissed on 29.2.00 by common judgment and order. hence this special.....

Judgment:

ORDER

Shethna, J.

(1). Both the special appeals are disposed of by this common order as they are arising out of the common judgment and order dated 22.9.00 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing both the writ petitions No. 302/97 & 418/87 filed by the appellants petitioners.

(2). An advertisement was issued for filing up the post of Sweeper with certain terms and conditions. One of the condition is that only one person from the family shall be made eligible for the employment, if there is already one member of the family is in employment, preference should be given to those persons from whose family no one was employed. This condition was included in the advertisement as per the common judgment and order dated 21.10.92 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1177/92 and other alike matters.

(3). Admittedly, there is more than one family member of the petitioners is in employment therefore they were not given appointment and those persons were preferred from those family where no one was employed. The same was challenged by way of two separate petitions which were dismissed on 29.2.00 by common judgment and order. Hence this special appeal.

(4). Only submission raised by Mr. Vyas learned counsel for the appellants was that the judgment and order dated 21.10.92 delivered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1177/97 and allied matters is in violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. Hence, it is nullity. Therefore to incorporate the conditions in advertisement that one person from the family should be made eligible for employment and if there is more than one member in the family is in the employment then the preference would be given to others whose family have no member in employment would be bad.

(5). We are afraid. We cannot accept this submission of Mr. Vyas Common judgment and order dated 21.10.92 delivered by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1177/97 and other allied matters has become final as the same was not challenged further. Once that judgment has become final then the respondents were bound to comply with the same and if they do not comply then it would be contempt of court. When they have complied with the judgment and incorporate the aforesaid conditions alongwith other conditions in the advertisement that the other members of the appellants were in service, therefore, they were not considered for appointment then it cannot be said to be bad.

(6). Having carefully gone through the judgment and order dated 22.9.00 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions No. 302 & 418/97 we are of the opinion that no error was committed by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition. Hence both the special appeals fail and are dismissed.