Court : Rajasthan
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondents recognized the examination of Adeep and Adeep Mahir from Jamia Urdu, Aligarh as equivalent to Secondary and Senior Secondary. Petitioner No. 1 passed Adeep Mahir Examination and the Petitioners No. 2 and 3 passed Adeep Examination from Jamia Urdu, Aligarh in the year 2010. The petitioners came to know that the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan has cancelled recognition 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. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that respondent-Board has already issued certificates to number of candidates who appeared in the said examinations in the year 2009-2010 before passing the order withdrawing recognition of Jamia Urdu, Aligarh. The petitioners could not apply for issuance of certif...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that he secured 329 marks in the Written Examination of Pre BSTC(Sanskrit), 2011, but he has not been called for counselling, whereas a less meritorious candidate of the same category namely Rakesh Kumar Bobasya having Roll NO. 791511, who secured 316 marks(55.54%) has been called for counselling and he has been allotted college/institution i.e. S.N. College of Education, Badgaon Road, Dholpur. 3. The petitioner has pleaded that he belongs to OBC category. He passed Praveshika Examination in the year 2009 and Varishtha Upadhayaya Examination in the year 2011 from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan. He has annexed his Caste Certificate as well as his Qualification Certificates with the writ petition. The petitioner applied for Pre BSTC(Sanskrit) Course, 2011. The petitioner appeared in the written examination of Pre BSTC(Sanskrit), 2011 and secured 329 ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Convict-petitioner has preferred this parole writ petition for grant of second parole of 30 days. 3. A notice to show cause was given and in response thereto, the respondents have filed their reply contending that conduct of petitioner during jail custody was not satisfactory and he was awarded jail punishment also. 4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 5. As per the provisions of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (for short 'the Rules of 1958'), it is a pre-condition that before filing an application or releasing the convict-petitioner on parole, his conduct in jail custody should be satisfactory. 6. In the present case, there is report of Jail Superintendent that conduct of petitioner is not satisfactory. In addition to it, it is also reported that petitioner was awarded jail punishment. Even otherwise, as per Rule 13 of the Rules of 1958, convict-petitioner cannot claim paro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
1. At the request of the parties, arguments were heard and the writ petition is being disposed off finally. 2. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition to issue necessary direction to respondent No.1- Sub Divisional Magistrate, Lalsot to decide his application for contempt, which is pending for last 13 years, at an early date. 3. From the pleadings of parties, it appears that petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against respondent Nos.2 to 5 in respect of disputed land, which was decreed on 30.11.1991 and thereafter appeal filed by respondent Nos.2 to 5 was also dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority on 19.12.1994. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 again preferred Second Appeal No.30/1995 before the Revenue Board, but the same was also dismissed. Since order was not complied with by the respondents, therefore, petitioner filed a contempt petition before the respondent No.1 on 05.09.1998, wherein notice was issued to respondents, but for one reason or other, case is being adjou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
1. At the request of parties, arguments were heard and the writ petition is being disposed off finally. 2. Convict-petitioner Indraj has preferred this parole writ petition for grant of first parole of 20 days under the provisions of Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (for short 'the Rules of 1958'). 3. A notice to show cause was given to respondents and in response thereto, they have filed reply to writ petition. 4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order dated 13.06.2011 passed by the District Parole Advisory Committee, whereby application of petitioner was rejected, and other documents placed on record by the parties. 5. There is no dispute that petitioner has already completed 1/4th of his sentence and his conduct in jail is satisfactory. This fact is proved from the nominal roll of petitioner, annexed by respondents as Annexure-R/1 with their reply. Application of petitioner was rejected only on the gr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Convict-petitioner Sanju Singh has preferred this parole writ petition for grant of first parole of 20 days under the provisions of Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (for short 'the Rules of 1958'). 3. Submission of the learned counsel for petitioner is that petitioner has already completed 1/4th of his sentence of imprisonment and his conduct during jail custody is satisfactory, but only on the basis of adverse report of the concerned Superintendent of Police, the District Parole Advisory Committee has rejected his application, therefore, he has preferred this writ petition challenging the order of District Parole Advisory Committee and to issue necessary direction to release the petitioner on first parole of 20 days. 4. A notice to show cause was given and in response thereto, the respondents have filed their reply, wherein it has been admitted that petitioner has completed 1/4th of his sentence and his conduct in jail ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
1. The petitioners by way of present petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seek to challenge the order dated 21.1.2998 passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)- Respondent No.4 (in Appeal No. E/2641/2008 and E/S2645/2008), whereby the Respondent No.4 (CESTAT) had directed the petitioner No.1 to make pre-deposit of 10 lacs on or before 21.2.2009 and had dismissed the stay application as well as the appeal preferred by the petitioner No.1. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present petition are that the Petitioner No. 1 is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956, engaged in the business of building body chassis supplied by the chassis manufacturers and the parties other than the chassis manufacturers and that the Petitioner No.2 is the share holder and Director of the Petitioner No.1 Company. The Respondent No.2 Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, had issued a show cause notice dated 1.2.2007 to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
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!Court : Rajasthan
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!Court : Rajasthan
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!