Rajasthan Court August 2011 Judgments
Ankit Kumar Dhaka Vs. University of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-10-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner, in this writ petition, has challenged the validity of Section 15(c) of the Constitution of the Rajasthan University Students' Union, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Constitution of the Students' Union of 2010') imposing restriction that no student shall be allowed to contest election for more than once for any post of office bearers of the same union any time. 3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner got admission in University of Rajasthan, Jaipur in MA (Previous) in subject Public Administration for the Sessions 2010-11. He contested Students' Union election for the post of General Secretary and lost. At present, he has been admitted in MA (Final). His grievance is that although he contested Students' Union election last year i.e. Sessions 2010-11 on the post of General Secretary and lost the election, he wants to contest the election of the Students' Union, which is scheduled to be held on 20th August, 2011, but be...
Tag this Judgment!Miss. Roshni Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-09-2011
1. Application for early listing of the writ petition is allowed. 2. At the request of parties, arguments were heard and the writ petition is being disposed off finally. 3. Petitioner was admitted in MBBS Course in the year 2002, she appeared in the IInd year MBBS Examination held in the month of May, 2005, September, 2005 and September, 2006 in Microbiology subject, where her PUC marks in theory and practical were 6-6 respectively and she was declared fail all the times. She again appeared in the Sessional (Internal Assessment) examinations held in May, 2007 for improvement of marks, where she was awarded 11 and 12 marks in Microbiology subject in theory as well as in practical respectively, but without incorporating the said marks i.e. 11 and 12, petitioner was again declared fail. A copy of mark-sheet of MBBS IInd year examination held in May, 2007 has been annexed as Annexure-1 with the writ petition. Therefore, petitioner filed the present writ petition with a prayer that responde...
Tag this Judgment!Chote Lal Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-09-2011
1. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming himself to be the adopted son of the deceased employee who was holding the post in the cadre of Class-IV died while in service on 17.03.1982. 2. Application was submitted by the petitioner for seeking compassionate appointment on 27/06/1997, pursuant to which the correspondence was made with the department. However, the file was finally closed and it was informed vide letter dt.08.08.2001 (Annx.9) that on account of delay the petitioner could not be held entitled for grant of compassionate appointment at a belated stage under the Rules, 1996. 3. The deceased employee Bhoma Ram was a member of Class-IV and died while in service on 17.03.1982 and his wife also died in a month thereafter. The petitioner is claiming himself to be the adopted son of the deceased employee and as alleged that there was some dispute between the petitioner and other family members of the deceased, as such a suit was filed by him in the competent cour...
Tag this Judgment!Habibur Rehman and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-2011
1. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that respondents recognised the examination of Adeeb and Adeeb Mahir from Jamia Urdu, Aligarh as equivalent to examination of Secondary and Senior Secondary. Petitioner Nos.1 to 5 passed the Adeeb Examination in the year 2010 and petitioner Nos.6 and 7 in the year 2009 from Jamia Urdu, Aligarh. Petitioners came to know from a daily newspaper dated 12.07.2011 about a notice given by respondent No.2 mentioning therein that on the recommendations of the Committee constituted by the Board, they have cancelled the recognition order of Jamia Urdu, Aligarh vide order dated 22.06.2011 and no eligibility certificate shall be issued to the candidates, who will pass the examination from Jamia Urdu, Aligarh. 3. It is further contended that petitioners passed their examinations before the above order dated 22.06.2011 withdrawing the recognition of Jamia Urdu, Aligarh. It is also contended that petitioners ser...
Tag this Judgment!Devraj Galav Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-2011
1. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner. 2. Petitioner, in this writ petition, has challenged Clause 8(vii) of the Guidelines dated 25.06.2010 issued by the Education(Group-4) Department, Government of Rajasthan, imposing restriction that a candidate will not be eligible for contesting election of Students' Union, if he has a previous criminal record. 3. Petitioner has pleaded that he is a student of M.A.(Previous) in the subject of Economics and he is a regular student of Government College, Baran, the respondent No.4. The Students' Union Election 2011-2012 has been declared and the same will be held on 20.08.2011. The State Government has issued a Circular/Guidelines dated 25.06.2010 on the basis of recommendations made by the Lyngdoh Committee, which has been ordered to be made effective by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 4. It is further contended that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Kotwali, Baran and trial is going on against the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Manoj Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-2011
1. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner. 2. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus to respondents by directing them to permit the petitioner to perform 'Seva-Pooja' etc. in the temple of Shree Mahadev Ji and Shree Hanuman Ji, situated at Nala Garden, Naya Ghat, Jaipur. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the temple is situated in Army Area and his father filed a civil suit for the same relief in the Civil Court, which was dismissed, thereafter first appeal was also dismissed and he has preferred S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.510/2010, wherein record of both the Courts below have been summoned, but no interim order has been granted in the second appeal, therefore, the present writ petition has been filed by petitioner. He, therefore, submitted that looking to the nature and urgency of the case, respondents may be directed to allow the petitioner to perform his 'Seva-Pooja' in the aforesaid tem...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Kumar Meena Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jaipur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-2011
1. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner. 2. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition before this Court on 01.08.2011 challenging the impugned order dated 26.03.2008 (Annexure-10), whereby sanction was granted against petitioner for his prosecution under the provisions of The Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. Writ petition has been filed with a delay of about 3-1/2 years. From the contents of writ petition, it is clear that no sufficient cause has been shown by the petitioner for not filing the writ petition at the earliest. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for petitioner admitted that impugned order dated 26.03.2008 granting sanction for prosecuting the petitioner was served upon him along with copy of charge-sheet filed against him in Criminal Court. 4. Although, no period of limitation is prescribed for filing writ petition, but the same is required to be filed at the earliest. If the writ petition has been filed after a delay of reasonable period without any rea...
Tag this Judgment!Maharani Girls Degree College Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner. 2. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition with the following prayer :- i) the action of the respondent No.2 to issue the letter (Ann.8) to the petitioner may kindly be declared to be illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and may kindly be quashed and set aside; ii) The respondent No.2 may kindly be directed to relax the new Rules and norms; iii) The respondent No.2 may kindly be directed to grant affiliation as per the rules and regulation of Respondent No.1 and may also be directed to inspect the petitioner institution as per the norms, rules and regulation of respondent No.1. iv) The petitioner may kindly be granted any such relief, which this Hon'ble Court may consider fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case”. 3. Prayer No.1 relates to letter dated 22nd June, 2011 (Annex.8), which reads as under :- “UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR The Secretary/Principal Maharani Girls Degree College, Tijar...
Tag this Judgment!Pawan Saini Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-05-2011
1. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner only with the grievance that admit card was issued to him for appearing in the written test held for the post of Executive Trainee (Electrical-2010) on 28.11.2010 (Sunday) and reporting time was fixed at 9 am and the further condition stipulated was that no candidate will be allowed to enter after 9:30 am. 2. Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner in fact reached at 9:15 but he was not permitted to enter at the test centre and that is the basic cause of his grievance which he has raised in the instant petition. 3. Reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondent and it has been averred that petitioner reached after 9:30 am and as such was not permitted to enter at the test centre and no reasonable cause was shown by the petitioner by which he could be permitted to appear at the test centre and on the contrary it has been further averred that in all 398 candidates appeared at the test centre in time schedule who wer...
Tag this Judgment!Mr Raj Deep JaIn Vs.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-04-2011
1. Instant company application has been filed by applicant Rajdeep Jain, Ex-Director/Promoter of M/s. Deeps Special Steels Ltd. u/R.9 of the Companies (Court) Rules,1959 seeking permission of this Court for recalling the order dt.30.01.2004 passed by the Company Court in Company Petition-32/2000 and possession including entire records and assets be handed over to the applicant company obviously after fulfillment of the requirement provided under law. 2. As alleged in the application that M/s. Deeps Special Steels Ltd was incorporated in 1983 as public limited company by shares with the Registrar of Companies and continued to run its commercial production till December,1992. However, in the first phase of 1993 because of some labour problems there was a prolonged closure accumulating losses which exceeded the net-worth (reserves and capital) of the company and in view of erosion of the net-worth of the company, matter was referred to BIFR. However, after examining the matter at length u...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »