State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. J.K. Panth and ors.

State of Rajasthan and anr. vs J.K. Panth and ors.

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Rajasthan Decided Mar 08, 1994

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/764559

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/764559
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Milap Chandra Jain and; Rajendra Saxena, JJ.
Decided On: Mar 08, 1994
Case Number: D.B. Civil Special Appeal Nos. 637 and 652 of 1993
Subject: Service
Disposition: Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Rajasthan Revenue Board (Appointment & Conditions of Service of Law Officer) Rules - Rule 6--No notice served terminating service--New appointment order not mentioning appointment as Dy. Govt. Advocate and no direction to hand over charge--Held, there is no error in order of Single Judge to warrant interference;...

Key legal issue: Service
Outcome / disposition: Appeal dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

State of Rajasthan and anr.

Respondent

J.K. Panth and ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred: Harpal Singh Chauhan v. State of U.P.
Reported In: 1994(1)WLN449

Excerpt

rajasthan revenue board (appointment & conditions of service of law officer) rules - rule 6--no notice served terminating service--new appointment order not mentioning appointment as dy. govt. advocate and no direction to hand over charge--held, there is no error in order of single judge to warrant interference;admittedly, no notice was served upon either of them under rule 6 of the rules terminating the appointment. it is also not mentioned in the subsequent order annex.-7 appointing new advocates as deputy government advocates that the appointment of the petitioner-respondents has been terminated or directing them to hand over the charge to the newly appointed dy. government advocates;we do not, therefore, find any error in the order of the learned single judge, warranting our interference;special appeal dismissed with costs - - -l), it is clearly mentioned that their appointment is governed by the rules including rule 6. we do not, therefore, find any error in the order of the learned single judge, warranting our interference.orders. admittedly, no notice was served upon either of them under rule 6 of the rules terminating the appointment. it is also not mentioned in the subsequent order annex.-7 appointing new advocates as deputy government advocates that the appointment of the petitioner- respondents has been terminated or directing them to hand over the charge to the newly appointed dy. government advocates. rule 6 of the rules specifically requires that the appointment of a government advocate shall be liable to termination at any time by a notice of one month in writing. in their appointment order dated june 05, 1985 (annex.-l), it is clearly mentioned that their appointment is governed by the rules including rule 6. we do not, therefore, find any error in the order of the learned single judge, warranting our interference. the facts and circumstances of harpal singh chauhan v. state of u.p. : 1993 crilj3140 are quite different and distinguishable. it does not help the appellants.6. accordingly, the special appeals are dismissed with costs. however, the state government is at liberty to terminate the appointment of the petitioner-respondents in accordance with law and not to assign any work to them till their appointments are terminated.

Full Judgment

ORDER

S. Admittedly, no notice was served upon either of them under Rule 6 of the Rules terminating the appointment. It is also not mentioned in the subsequent order Annex.-7 appointing new Advocates as Deputy Government Advocates that the appointment of the petitioner- respondents has been terminated or directing them to hand over the charge to the newly appointed Dy. Government Advocates. Rule 6 of the Rules specifically requires that the appointment of a Government Advocate shall be liable to termination at any time by a notice of one month in writing. In their appointment order dated June 05, 1985 (Annex.-l), it is clearly mentioned that their appointment is governed by the Rules including Rule 6. We do not, therefore, find any error in the order of the learned Single Judge, warranting our interference. The facts and circumstances of Harpal Singh Chauhan v. State of U.P. : 1993 CriLJ3140 are quite different and distinguishable. It does not help the appellants.

6. Accordingly, the special appeals are dismissed with costs. However, the State Government is at liberty to terminate the appointment of the petitioner-respondents in accordance with law and not to assign any work to them till their appointments are terminated.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1994 Same Parties State of Rajasthan and anr. vs J.K. Panth and ors. Same Subject Service Same Judge Milap Chandra Jain and; Rajendra Saxena, JJ.

Service