Rajasthan Court February 2010 Judgments

Karma and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: RLW2010(1)Raj745

1. By judgment dated 3.12.2003, learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Udaipur convicted the accused appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 396 and 449 IPC and sentenced the accused persons in following terms:396 IPC :- Life imprisonment with Rs. 500/- fine and two months rigorous imprisonment in default to payment of fine.449 IPC :-10 years rigorous imprisonment with Rs. 500/- fine and two months rigorous imprisonment in default to payment of fine.2. As per Ex.P/2, the First Information Report, facts of the case are that on 19.5.2002 one Prabhu Singh informed the police at the spot of occurrence that in the night of 18.5.2002 at about 09:00 PM when he was sleeping in front of Hanumanji Temple within the temple complex of Gautmeshwar Mahadev, stoning was started suddenly and 7-8 persons carrying knife, sword, lathi and saria, entered into the temple campus. At that time Maharaj Keshwanandji (deceased) was sleeping in chowk of the temple and the mother of Shri Keshwanan...

Ranveer Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.

Court: Rajasthan

ORDERMohammad Rafiq, J.1. This writ petition was filed by petitioner, who was Forest Guard, in the year 1997 praying therein for a direction to respondents to give benefit of promotion to him to the post of Assistant Forester because he got first position in final examination conducted by Forest Training Center, in terms of Rule 21 of the Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service Rules, 1963, with all consequential benefits; further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents to make such provision and consider him for promotion to post of Assistant Forester in terms of Rule 21 of the said Rules since he secured first position in 1982 batch of Forest Guard Training.2. It is contended that the aforesaid Rule seeks to make a hostile discrimination as against a candidate who stands at first position while undergoing training in same Training School i.e. State Foresters Training School, yet, he is not granted incentives as granted in the case of Forester, who stand first in the fina...

Smt. Rajul JaIn Vs. State and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Ajay Rastogi, J.1. Counsel submits that controversy raised herein has been decided by DB decision of this Court at principal seat Jodhpur in Special Appeal (Writ) 208/06 & bunch of others (State of Rajasthan v. Ramniwas Porwal) on 13/12/07 (Per Hon. Mr. Rajesh Balia, J.) 2008 (2) WLC 406) clarifying the position ad infra:However, it may be clarified that because of the provisions made in Note 8 read with Note appended to Rule 6 a Senior Teacher drawing pay in second selection grade of 6500-10500 prior to 1.7.1998 and promoted as Senior Teacher but after 1.7.1989 who has not completed 10 years as Senior Teacher at the time of commencement of the Act his pay in pay-scale of 650010500 was protected as personal to him, though he would become eligible to such scale under the new rules of 1998 only on completion of 10 years. In this view of the matter, the rights of the respondents even under the aforesaid provision remain intact and unaffected and it could not have any adverse effect on the...

Atar Singh and ors. Vs. State and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Ajay Rastogi, J.1. Counsel submits that controversy raised herein has been decided by DB decision of this Court at principal seat Jodhpur in Special Appeal (Writ) 208/06 & bunch of others (State of Rajasthan v. Ramniwas Porwal) on 13/12/07 (Per Hon. Mr. Rajesh Balia, J.) (2008 (2) WLC 406) clarifying the position ad infra:However, it may be clarified that because of the provisions made in Note 8 read with Note appended to Rule 6 a Senior Teacher drawing pay in second selection grade of 6500-10500 prior to 1.7.1998 and promoted as Senior Teacher but after 1.7.1989 who has not completed 10 years as Senior Teacher at the time of commencement of the Act his pay in pay-scale of 650010500 was protected as personal to him, though he would become eligible to such scale under the new rules of 1998 only on completion of 10 years. In this view of the matter, the rights of the respondents even under the aforesaid provision remain intact and unaffected and it could not have any adverse effect on th...

Sukhwir Sisodia Vs. State and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Ajay Rastogi, J.1. Counsel submits that controversy raised herein has been decided by DB decision of this Court at principal seat Jodhpur in Special Appeal (Writ) 208/06 & bunch of others (State of Rajasthan v. Ramniwas Porwal) on 13/12/07 (Per Hon. Mr. Rajesh Balia, J.) (2008 (2) WLC 406) clarifying the position ad infra:However, it may be clarified that because of the provisions made in Note 8 read with Note appended to Rule 6 a Senior Teacher drawing pay in second selection grade of 6500-10500 prior to 1.7.1998 and promoted as Senior Teacher but after 1.7.1989 who has not completed 10 years as Senior Teacher at the time of commencement of the Act his pay in pay-scale of 650010500 was protected as personal to him, though he would become eligible to such scale under the new rules of 1998 only on completion of 10 years. In this view of the matter, the rights of the respondents even under the aforesaid provision remain intact and unaffected and it could not have any adverse effect on th...

Smt. Chandra Kala Sharma Vs. State and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Ajay Rastogi, J.1. Counsel submits that controversy raised herein has been decided by DB decision of this Court at principal seat Jodhpur in Special Appeal (Writ) 208/06 & bunch of others (State of Rajasthan v. Ramniwas Porwal) on 13/12/07 (Per Hon. Mr. Rajesh Balia, J.) 2008 (2) WLC 406 clarifying the position ad infra:However, it may be clarified that because of the provisions made in Note 8 read with Note appended to Rule 6 a Senior Teacher drawing pay in second selection grade of 6500-10500 prior to 1.7.1998 and promoted as Senior Teacher but after 1.7.1989 who has not completed 10 years as Senior Teacher at the time of commencement of the Act his pay in pay-scale of 650010500 was protected as personal to him, though he would become eligible to such scale under the new rules of 1998 only on completion of 10 years. In this view of the matter, the rights of the respondents even under the aforesaid provision remain intact and unaffected and it could not have any adverse effect on them...

Mohan Swaroop Saraswat Vs. the Rajasthan State Electricity Board Throu ...

Court: Rajasthan

ORDERMohammad Rafiq, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Mohan Swaroop Saraswat praying therein that words 'Gr.I' mentioned in Note No. 2 below Item No. 1 in Schedule appended to the Rajasthan State Electricity Board Service of Engineers (Recruitment, Promotion and Seniority etc.) Regulations, 1969 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Regulations'), be declared ultra-vires of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and be accordingly struck down; further respondents be directed to consider his candidature against 1/3rd vacancies of direct recruitment quota meant for inservice Junior Engineers as provided in Note 2 (Supra), and appoint him on the basis of his merit amongst inservice Junior Engineers, with effect from 11.11.1994, when Junior Engineers below to him in the such merit, were appointed.2. Petitioner was serving with erstwhile Rajasthan State Electricity Board, which is now divided into five different electricity companies. He is a diploma holder...

Murari Lal Sharma Vs. State and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Ajay Rastogi, J.1. Counsel submits that controversy raised herein has been decided by DB decision of this Court at principal seat Jodhpur in Special Appeal (Writ) 208/06 & bunch of others (State of Rajasthan v. Ramniwas Porwal) on 13/12/07 (Per Hon. Mr. Rajesh Balia, J.) (2008 (2) WLC 406) clarifying the position ad infra:However, it may be clarified that because of the provisions made in Note 8 read with Note appended to Rule 6 a Senior Teacher drawing pay in second selection grade of 6500-10500 prior to 1.7.1998 and promoted as Senior Teacher but after 1.7.1989 who has not completed 10 years as Senior Teacher at the time of commencement of the Act his pay in pay-scale of 650010500 was protected as personal to him, though he would become eligible to such scale under the new rules of 1998 only on completion of 10 years. In this view of the matter, the rights of the respondents even under the aforesaid provision remain intact and unaffected and it could not have any adverse effect on th...

Mukat Bihari Sharma and ors. Vs. State and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Ajay Rastogi, J.1. Counsel submits that controversy raised herein has been decided by DB decision of this Court at principal seat Jodhpur in Special Appeal (Writ) 208/06 & bunch of others (State of Rajasthan v. Ramniwas Porwal) on 13/12/07 (Per Hon. Mr. Rajesh Balia, J.) 2008 (2) WLC 406 clarifying the position ad infra:However, it may be clarified that because of the provisions made in Note 8 read with Note appended to Rule 6 a Senior Teacher drawing pay in second selection grade of 6500-10500 prior to 1.7.1998 and promoted as Senior Teacher but after 1.7.1989 who has not completed 10 years as Senior Teacher at the time of commencement of the Act his pay in pay-scale of 650010500 was protected as personal to him, though he would become eligible to such scale under the new rules of 1998 only on completion of 10 years. In this view of the matter, the rights of the respondents even under the aforesaid provision remain intact and unaffected and it could not have any adverse effect on them...

Smt. Sundri Devi Vs. State and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Ajay Rastogi, J.1. Counsel submits that controversy raised herein has been decided by DB decision of this Court at principal seat Jodhpur in Special Appeal (Writ) 208/06 & bunch of others (State of Rajasthan v. Ramniwas Porwal) on 13/12/07 (Per Hon. Mr. Rajesh Balia, J.) (2008 (2) WLC 406) clarifying the position ad infra:However, it may be clarified that because of the provisions made in Note 8 read with Note appended to Rule 6 a Senior Teacher drawing pay in second selection grade of 6500-10500 prior to 1.7.1998 and promoted as Senior Teacher but after 1.7.1989 who has not completed 10 years as Senior Teacher at the time of commencement of the Act his pay in pay-scale of 650010500 was protected as personal to him, though he would become eligible to such scale under the new rules of 1998 only on completion of 10 years. In this view of the matter, the rights of the respondents even under the aforesaid provision remain intact and unaffected and it could not have any adverse effect on th...