Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1983WLN(UC)505
D.P. Gupta, J.1. A short but intersting question arises for decision in this writ petition about the interpretation of the rules relating to giving of grace marks at the departmental examination conducted by the Education Department of the State of Rajasthan.2. The petitioner is a third grade to cher employed in the education Department of the State of Rajasthan. In the year 1970 he appeared at the B.S.T.C. examination held by the Registrar, Departmental Examinations, of the Education Deppartment, Rajasthan. The Petitioner was successful in all other subject except in the subject of Educational Psychology and Health Education with the result that he was declared to have failed at the BSTC examination, 1970. In the aforesaid subject, out of a total of 100 marks, 25 marks were meant for internal assessment, while 75 marks were assigned to external examination. According to the rules governing the said departmental examination the candidate was required to obtain atleast 25% marks in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1983WLN139
G.M. Lodha, J.1. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit on 28th June, 1976 for eviction of the premises leased to the defendant-appellant on two fold grounds of default in the payment of rent and, bonafide personal necessity as provided by Clauses (a) & (h) of sub Section 11 of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act.2. The suit was filed in the court of Munsif, Bharatpur. The trial court framed the issues on 24th November, 1977 and passed an order on 7th January, 1978 directing the defendant to deposit the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 18/- per month and the total amount of arrears of rent was being Rs. 1020/- only. The appeal filed against this order of 7th January, 1978 was dismissed on 11th January, 1979. On 5th February, 1980, an application was filed by the plaintiff under Section 13(5) of the Act for striking out the defence of the defendant. The trial court dismissed this application and the appeal was file...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1983WLN634
G.M. Lodha, J.1. Shri Hari Narayan Goyal, petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the orders dated 12-11-1972 and 2-9-1974. The Petitioner is an employee of the Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation constituted under the provisions of Agricultural Produce (Development and Ware Housing Corporation) Act, 1956 in the year 1957.2. While working at Bhinmal, the petitioner was placed under suspension and was served with a memorandum dated 18th April, 1969. Thereafter, the petitioner was punished by stoppage of one grade increment. However, this memorandum and inquiry is under challenge in this case.3. The petitioner while he was working as Incharge, Mandawar Mahuwa Road, he was placed under suspension by an order dated 28- 10-1971 and later on inquiry was conducted under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958. Shri Manmohan Chand Mathur was appointed as Enquiry Officer.4. After the enquiry was over, the Managing Director of the Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1983WLN(UC)107
M.C. Jain, J.1. The respondents Mangal Singh, Jabbar singh, Durg Singh and Bhag Singh and three others were acquitted of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B, IPC, and the first four respondents were also acquitted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 114, IPC, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. I, Jodhpur, by his judgment dated 5-9-1972. The State has preferred an appeal against all the seven accused persons, but the appeal was not admitted against the three accused persons, namely, Peersingh, Bhawanisingh and Nagsingh.2. We may narrate the prosecution case in brief. Rajsingh, the father of the accused persons Mangalsingh, Jaswantsingh and Jabbarsingh who is alleged to have abscented after the murder, was murdered sometime in the year 1965 and in connection with that murder Punna and Bhagchand Bishnois were prosecuted and were convicted. According to the prosecution case the sens of Rajsingh carried the impression that Bheraram Bishnoi (since d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1984Raj55; 1983()WLN117
ORDERG.M. Lodha, J. 1. These three writ petitions are directed against the common judgment of the Board if Revenue, Rajasthan, Aimer dated the 22nd January 1973 by which three second appeals against the Municipal Board Bhawani Mandi were disposed of.2. These three second appeals were filed in three suite namely, No. 265/1960, 266/1960, 264/1960 which were decided by the Assistant Collector, Jhalawar, under Section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') vide a common order of 14th Oct 1968 (Annexure 8).3. The petitioners denied the allegations made by the Municipal Board in the suits and contended that the suit land was a Mafi Jagir and under the Mafi of one Pawangir. From the time of Pawangir, the petitioner--Prahlad's father-- Manga was in possession as a sub-tenant of the Mafidar for the last 35 years and as at the time of resumption of Mafi he was a sub-tenant, he became the Recorded Tenant and by virtue of law he became the statutory Khatedar ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1983WLN(UC)215
S.K. Lodha, J.1. This is a contempt petition Under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act No. (LXX of 1971) (for short 'the Act') by Shri Om Prakash, who, at the relevant time was working as Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Raisinghuagar.2. The facts leading to this petition may briefly be notice. Novelty Cinema (non-petitioner No. 1) through its partner Yogendra Nath Handa and non-petitioners No. 2 to 10 filed S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 2136 of 1980. This petition was admitted by this Court and the following stay order was passed:Issue notices returnable within two weeks. Notices be given Dasti. Meanwhile the respondent No. 2 should proceed with the fixation of rates of fresh admission tickets in order to give effect to Annexures 3 and 3A and notify the case. Till that is done, the earlier arrangement would contiune and the licence of the petitioner could not be cancelled on the ground No. 2 till further orders. The petitioner should give surety to the satisfaction of the Collecto...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1983WLN(UC)246
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioners has challenged the action of the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 in refusing to confirm the petitioner on the post of Warehousing Manager Grade II in preference to the respondents Nos. 4 to 12 and also their action in not promoting the petitioner on the post of Warehousing Manager Grade I.2. The addmitted facts are that the petitioner was employed as a Technical Assistant in the Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation (here in after re erred to as 'the Corporation') by an order dated October 16, 1961. He joined the aforesaid post on October 20,1961 and was confirmed on the said post by the order dated December 22, 1962 with effect from December 16, 1962. Later on, the date of confirmation of the petitioner on the post of Technical Assistant Grade I was modified as October 20, 1962. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Technical Assistant Grade I by an order dated May 17, 1966 and was confirmed on that post with effect from M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1983WLN(UC)58
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This is a petition by Vinod Kumar Purohit under Article. 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs:(1) That the University of Jodhpur (here in after referred to as 'the University') may be directed to issue syllabus to the petitioner(2) That the University may be directed to conduct Final Examination in Law for the year 1983 of the petitioner in accordance with Ordinance 358 of the University as existed on the date when the petitioner took admission in the First year in Law.2. The petitioner sought admission in Three year Degree Course in Law in 1980. The admission, examination, etc. to Three Year Degree Course in Law are governed by Ordinance 353 to 367 of the University. Mr. M.R. Singhvi. learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to Ordinance 356 in para 4 of the writ petition relating to First Examination in Law. According to the Syllabus, at the time of petitioner's admission in Three Years Degree Course in Law, the Scheme of Exam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1983WLN(UC)476
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.1. In this petition the petitioners have challenged the validity of the order of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer dated August 28, 1972.2. The petitioner filed a suit for possession Under Section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on October 4, 1958 in the court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Phalodi, alleging that agricultural lands comprised in Khasra Nov 62 and 62/1, including the Pipalia well situated in village Kotra, Tehsil Osian District Jodhpur was under the tenancy of the plaintiffs, who held a 'Bapi Patta' dated December 4, 1942 in respect of the aforesaid agricultural lands, including the Pipalia well. Defendant Bhura was allowed by means of an agreement dated September 12, 1950, produced in the court of the Assistant Collector, Jodhpur, to continue to remain in possession of the agricultural lands in question as a sub-tenant thereof for a period of two years. The plaintiffs alleged that after the e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1984Raj62; 1983()WLN181
ORDERD.L. Mehta, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Status quo versus revolution Protagonists of status quo want that the status quo should be maintained and at the most, revolutionary changes should be allowed. Revolutionaries want revolution in all spheres of life, touching the social structure, economic conditions and political system.2A. Extreme of both may not be correct, the truth lies in between the two.3. The rich heritage and culture ofthe country has to be preserved and inthat matter, the protagonists of statusquo will have a better say and can putup the case in a better way showingthat the doctrine of evolution should beapplied. 4. Revolution and evolution lead to a change and it has to be seen which method is necessary for the purpose of implementing the commitment we have made to the Constitution of our country.5. Judiciary should always be non-committed. We cannot have commitment towards the ideology of any political, social, group or party. We are committed th...
Tag this Judgment!