Rajasthan Court November 2006 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Santosh (Smt.) and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj702
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. All the aforementioned writ petitions have been filed by an many as 224 petitioners who all are working on the post of Female Health Worker (for short F.H.W.) under Chief Medical and Health Officers of districts Barmer, Jaisalmer, Jalore and Nagaur on payment of consolidated monthly salary. In all these writ petitions the petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to treat their selection and appointment on the post of F.H.W. regular and substantive. In the alternative it has been prayed that the advertisement dated 7th December, 2004 may be set aside and the respondents may be directed to first absorb the petitioners on the post of F.H.W. and thereafter proceed to make recruitment pursuant to advertisement dated 7th December, 2004 and in doing so, the respondents may fill up 50% of the posts from amongst the petitioaers and further award 25% bonus marks to the rest of the petitioners against remaining 50% posts. Since common relief ha...
Sohan Lal Soni Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(2)Raj1044
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. This is an old writ petition filed way back in the year 1997 by petitioner Sohan Lal Soni with the prayer that rule 208 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (in short the Rules of 1951) and rule 25 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (in short the Rules of 1996) in so far as these rules provide for forfeiture of past services on resignation be declared as illegal and be struck down as being illegal and unconstitutional and further that rule 244(1) of the Rules of 19951 and rule 50(1) of the Rules of 1996 in so far as they provide for minimum qualifying service and age to become eligible for pension be also struck down as being illegal and unconstitutional. A consequential relief has also been prayed for in that the respondents be directed to grant pension to the petitioner proportionate to the period of service rendered by him by treating his resignation as retirement form service.2. Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was appointed ...
Akha Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj694
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5th May, 1988 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Barmer whereby the accused appellant was convicted under Section 18 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo Rl for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 1 lac and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment of three months.2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that when on 14.7.1987, SHO, Police Station, Bijrad on receiving an information proceeded to the residence of Hemaram S/o Idanram Jat, resident of Shobhala Ki Dhani, a person from the Dhani having been seen the police party, who were in uniform tried to run away from Dhani of Hemaram. He was intercepted by the police party and asked to disclose his name. He mentioned his name was Aharam S/o Shri Bagaram Jat, resident of Shobhala Ki Dhani. When he has asked to give the reason why he wanted to run away, he stated that he was in possession of opium. Constable Jogendra Singh the...
B.i.C. Sales Corporation and anr. Vs. Tinwari Automobiles and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-2006
Reported in: 2007(34)PTC366(Raj)
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties in both these Appeals, CMA No. 816/2003 and No. 897/2003, on admission and on prayer for interim relief.2. These two appeals have been preferred by the defendants against the same order dated 30.07.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Udaipur in Civil Misc. No. 14/2003 issuing temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff in an action under Section 105 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 ['the Act'] after finding that there is a prima facie case in the suit where plaintiff has raised such bona fide questions regarding previous user of the unregistered trade mark 'BIC' that require further investigation and inquiry. While considering irreparable injury and balance of convenience, the learned trial Court observed that it was to be decided in the main suit as to who was the prior user of the disputed trademark of the goods in question and as prima facie case was found in favour of the plai...
Bansi Lal Jakhar (Dr.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(2)Raj1067
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Dr. Bansilal Jakhar seeking relaxation in the outer age limit for appointment on the post of Head Master, Secondary School. He was initially appointed as Teacher Grade-III vide order dated 14th Sept., 1985. Later however he accepted the appointment as primary teacher in Kandriya Vidhayalaya, Uttarlai, Barmer on 10.12.1986 where he was promoted as teacher grade-H (TGT) and worked upto 28th Nov., 1994. The petitioner then again came back in the employment of the respondent as Lecturer of the School Education as Political Science vide order dated 29.1.1994.2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission issued an advertisement in some time in April, 2002 inviting thereby applications for 25 posts of Head Masters, Secondary School. The petitioner also applied pursuant to the said advertisement. The case of the petitioner is that he was eligible for such appointment as per Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Education Service Rules, 1970 ...
Jalam Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-2006
Reported in: 2007(3)SLJ360(Raj)
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by as many as 23 petitioners who are all working on the post of Assistant Engineer with Public Works Department of the State Government with the prayer that respondents be directed to consider them as holders on the post of Asstt. Engineer in substantive capacity with effect from 16th November, 1988 by treating them to have been selected against the vacancies of the year 1988-89 and accordingly reckon their seniority.2. Foundational facts as set out in the pleadings are that the petitioners were initially appointed as Junior Engineer in the service of the respondents. They were later promoted on the post of Asstt. Engineer (Civil) (Degree-holder) by different orders of the respondents on urgent temporary basis in ad hoc capacity under Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Service of Engineers (B&R; Branch) Rules, 1954 (in short 'the Rules of 1954'). The petitioners are since then continuously holding the post of Asstt. Engineer. Subsequently, t...
Mohan Lal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(2)Raj1594
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. The petitioners in this writ petition have challenged the condition No. 3 contained in the advertisement dated 9.1.1996 and have prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to provide them appointment in accordance with their merit position and declare restriction contained in the aforesaid condition No. 3 as illegal and ultra vires of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.2. The respondents Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur issued an advertisement dated 9.1.1996 inviting thereby applications for appointment on the post of Safaiwala. Condition No. 3 of the said advertisement however stated that appointment shall be given to only those in whose family no one was already in employment anywhere.3. I have heard Shri K.K. Shah, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri R.S, Saluja, learned Counsel for the respondents.4. Shri K.K. Shah, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the condition like the present one is pre se discriminatory in...
Manager, Atlanta Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(3)Raj1934
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. These two writ petitions raise a common questions of fact and law and therefore are being taken up together for disposal. In both the writ petitions, the petitioner is also common and two orders passed on the same date have been challenged. However, for deciding the controversy, facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3780/2005- Manager, Atlanta Infrastructure Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. are being referred.2. In the first writ petition namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3780/2005, what is under challenge is the corrigendum issued by the appropriate Government on 9th May, 2005 vide which it has amended the name of the union in the notification earlier issued by it. In second writ petition namely S.B. Civil writ petition No. 4155/2005 also under challenge is the corrigendum issued by the appropriate Government on 9th May, 2005 by which also an amendment was made in the notification of reference dated 14.12.1999. By this notification the appropriate Government...
State of Rajasthan Through Chief Engineer and anr. Vs. State of Rajast ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-2006
Reported in: [2007(112)FLR1230]; [2007]3STJ364(NULL)
ORDERMohammad Rafiq, J.1. The State of Rajasthan through its Chief Engineer, Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojna, Jaisalmer and Executive Engineer, 19th Division, Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojna, Jaisalmer in the present writ petition has challenged the award passed by the learned Labour Court dated 10th October, 1995.2. An industrial dispute was referred to the learned Labour Court, Jodhpur by appropriate Government vide notification dated 15th February, 1990 on the question whether removal of the respondent-workman Nena Ram by Executive Engineer, Jaisalmer from their services was illegal and justified and if not what relief he was entitled to.3. Case set up by the workman in the statement claim before the learned Labour Court was that he was appointed in the department in August, 1934. He was thereafter granted regular pay scale on the post of Beldar vide order dated 10th May, 1985. Suddenly however he was removed from service vide order dated 16th October, 1987. It was later discovered that...
Vikash Adhikari and anr. Vs. Judge, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-2006
Reported in: [2007(113)FLR37]
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. The petitioner have prayed for setting aside the award dated 13th October, 1998 passed by the Labour Court, Bikaner and its consequential notification dated 18th August, 1999. The case set up by the petitioners in the memo of writ petition is that the respondent-workman was engaged as a part time worker during Famine Relief Works on fixed monthly payment of Rs. 75. A copy of the resolution of the Gram Panchayat has been placed on record to substantiate this. Apart from working with the petitioner, the respondent-workman was also running a Grocery Shop in his village and, therefore, ho on his own accord, stopped working in Famine Relief Works from the year 1987. The petitioners have placed on record resolution of the Gram Panchayat, Gulpura passed on 7th December, 1997 to show that the respondent was running a Kirana Shop for the last 15 years. This according to the petitioners was the reason for his absence from duty. The respondent submitted an application before ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »