Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1979Raj74
ORDERN.M. Kasliwal, J. 1. The petitioner was elected as sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Udaipura Tehsil Sikrai District Jaipur. On 10th Feb. 1978, he was administered oath of the office of Sarpanch. Respondents Nos. 3 to 12 are the Panchas of the above Gram Panchayat duly elected. Respondents Nos. 13 and 14 are the members of the Gram Panchayat by co-option. A vote of no confidence was passed by the Panchas in a meeting held on 23rd Sept. 1978. Out of 13 Panchas 11 Panchas voted in favour of the no-confidence motion and two panchas, out of whom, one was the sarpanch himself, voted against the no confidence motion. Shri Chiranji Lal Sharma, Officiating Tehsildar, Sikrai, who presided over the meeting, declared the no confidence motion to be passed against the petitioner. The petitioner by way of this writ petition has challenged the motion of no confidence passed in the meeting held on 23rd Sept. 1978. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that only respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1997(3)WLC302; 1997(2)WLN52
B.R. Arora, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26.2.96 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner and held that the relaxation in the age is only for the Government Servant and not for the persons serving in the other departments which are not run by the State Government.2. Appellant-petitioner Niyaz Mohammed Khan was working as a Teacher Grade III in Government Primary School in Panchayat Samiti, Bhilwara. The appellant, in pursuance to the Advertisement No. 6-Pariksha/Kha./Up. Ni. Po/94-95 dated 3.10.94, inviting applications for appointment on the post of twenty-six Sub-Insptectors of Police, applied for the same. His candidature was rejected for the post of Sub-Inspector Police being over-age. While considering his eligibility, the age-relaxation for three years applicable to the Government Servant was not taken into account in his case as he was in the service of Panchayat Samiti.3....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1994(2)WLN332
V.K. Singhal, J.1. This judgment shall disposed of the writ petitions enumerated in the Schedule 'A'. Since the questions involved are common, all these writ petitions are decided by this Single Order.2. The dispute relates to the termination of services of the Teacher Grade-III, who have obtained the training certificate from Rajkiya Udyog Prashikshalaya Parasuramdwara, Jaipur (in short Parasuramdwara) and, Vidyabhawan Kala Sansthan Udaipur (in short Vidyabhawan). Few of the teachers have obtained the B.Ed, qualification with permission or without permission of the employer. A circular was issued by the Director-Cum-Special Secretary, Gramin Vikas and Panchayatiraj Vibhag on 7.4.94, in which directions were given that the teachers having National Trade Certificate (N.T.C.) are not capable of teaching in the schools which are run by the Panchayat Samitis, and, therefore the services of such teachers who have been appointed after 6.01.1985 shall be terminated. The copy of the circular i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1996WLC(Raj)UC136; 1995(2)WLN67
J.R. Chopra, J.1. These 22 writ petitions raise almost common questions of law and facts and, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.2. Briefly stated, the facts of these writ petitions are: that in these writ petitions, the petitioners have mostly challenged the charge sheets that have been served on them for their different acts of misconduct and in most of these wit petitions, the enquiries are pending. In D.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 3574 of 1991, V.K. Choturvedi v. Union of India and Ors. the petitioner has been reverted to the rank of Sub Inspector for a period of two years vide order Annexure A/6. In D.B.Civil writ petitions No. 6599 of 1991, S.C.Kataria v. U.O.I. and Ors. and 3674 of 1992, Inder Raj Singh v. U.O.I. and Ors. the petitioners have been punished with stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect. In D.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 4595 of 1991, Om Prakash v. U.O.I. and Ors. the enquiry report was supplied to the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2000(3)WLC147; 1999(0)WLN675
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner is a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Ramgarh which is on the border. He has challenged In this petition the impugned order at Annexure-P14 dated 17.6.1999 passed by the Collector Jaisalmer by constituting a committee under the Chairmanship of Vikas Adhikari with AEN, Headmaster of Senior Secondary School, Ramgarh, Gram Sevak, Gram Panchayat Ramgarh and Patwari Ramgarh in exercise of his powers Under Section 33(11) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules 1996 (for short the Rules') for completing the development work which could not be complete after the election of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Ramgarh and to report about the completion of the work.2. Shri Udawat Senior Advocate has submitted that by passing the order Annexure-P14 indirectly the petitioner is removed from the post of Sarpanch. He submitted that it is only Sarpanch who must complete the pending development works of the Panchayat, for which no committee required to be constituted. Relying upon the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2002(1)WLC216; 2007(3)WLN373
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This is a petition filed by two petitioners; one Asu Ram, a resident of Ward No. 14 Village Palana and other Kheta Ram, who is Ward Panch of Gram Panchayat Palana - a Panchayati Raj Institution, challenging the order dated 7.4.2001 (Annex.5) passed by State Govt. in purported exercise of its power Under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 directing stay of the operation of order passed by Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner on 21st March, 2001 declaring the respondent No.3, the Sarpanch of said Gram Panchayat, by holding that he suffers from disqualification Under Section 19(1) and declaring the office of Sarpanch to be vacant in terms of Section 39 of the said Act.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the State Govt. has no jurisdiction to revise or reject the order passed by the Competent Authority Under Section 39 by invoking powers Under Section 97. He contends that the power Under Section 97 be invoked only In respect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2003(3)Raj1409; 2003(3)WLC481
Singh, C.J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the orders, dated 7.7.2000 (Annex.P/8) and 11.07.2000 (Annx.P/9), passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer; and Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Mandal (Bhilwara), respectively. By the first order dated 7.7.2000 the petitioner, who was elected as Sarpanch of Gram' Panchayat, Dhunwala (Tehsil Mandal) on 31.1.2000, was placed under suspension by the Divisional Commissioner and a recommendation was made to the State Government for declaring the seat vacant since he was elected as a general category candidate, against a reserved seat. Even by the second order dated 11.07.2000 the petitioner was placed under suspension from the elected post of Sarpanch, Gram panchayat, Dhunwala, by the Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Mandal.2. The facts giving rise to the petition, are as follows:-The District Election Officer published a list of wards and constituencies specifying the seats for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2004(3)Raj1788; 2004(4)WLC17
Anil Dev Singh, C.J.1. These two appeals are directed against the order dated January 10, 2003 of the learned Single Judge rendered in SB Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 8191/2002 & 8184/2002, to the extent the notification dated July 10, 2002, Annexure-3 to the writ petition, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the LA Act'), has been upheld.2. The brief facts leading to the filing of these two appeals are as follows:On July 10, 2002, twenty feet wide strip of land on either side of Bhawani Singh Road between Indira Circle and Ram Bagh Circle for the purposes of widening the road was notified by the State under Section 4 of the LA Act. The Notification was published in the Official Gazette. It was also published on July 27, 2002 in two daily newspapers, having circulation in the locality. Besides, on August 29, 2002, the District Collector, Jaipur caused public notice of the substance of the Notification in the locality Pursuant to the Notification under Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2005(1)Raj682; 2005(1)WLC548
N.N. Mathur, J.1. Thousands of teachers by way of instant bunch of Writ petitions, as mentioned in Schedule appended to each petition, have challenged the Constitutional validity of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Ordinance, 2004 and Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Rules, 2004 providing for selection of Teachers Gr.III by the Public Service Commission and have prayed for restoring the autonomy to the Panchayati Raj Institutions in the matter of selection & appointment of primary school teachers. Petitioner-teachers have also prayed for restoration of the Notification dated 14.7.2003 providing to fill-up the posts of Teacher Gr.III to the extent of 75% from Para Teachers/Shiksha Sahyogi and 25% from the open market. It is further prayed that their services be regularized as Teacher Gr.III, who have been in continuous service for a considerable time as Para Teacher/Shiksha Sahyogi.BACKGROUND FACTS:2. The factual matrix in juxtaposition with the relevant rules may be set out...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2007Raj168; RLW2007(2)Raj1674
S.N. Jha, C.J.1. A significant question of law - whether the dispute relating to any pre-election disqualification can be adjudicated only in an election petition before the District Judge under Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 read with rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 or it can also be adjudicated by the authority under rule 23 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 read with Section 39 (2) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 - is involved in these three special appeals. The point being common the appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The representative facts may be noticed from D.B. Special Appeal (W) No. 236/2006 which was argued as the leading case.3. The appellant filed writ petition, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9758/2005, for quashing the enquiry initiated by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Zila Parishad Jhunjhunu. She was informed that the preliminary enquiry held by the Additi...
Tag this Judgment!