Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAMESH KUMAR versus STATE & ORS

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


RAMESH KUMAR v STATE & ORS - CW Case No. 4314 of 2004 [2007] RD-RJ 2088 (18 April 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

ORDER

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4314/2004

RAMESH KUMAR

Vs.

State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Date of Order : 18/04/2007

PRESENT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR

Mr. Sanjeet Purohit for the petitioner.

Mr. Sajjan Singh for the respondent No.4.

Mr. B.L.Tiwari, Dy. G.A.

BY THE COURT:-

By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order terminating his services and seeks reinstatement in service with continuity of service and all consequential benefits.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the petitioner is a graduate in Arts and fulfills the qualification for the post of Shiksha Sahyogi in the schools run under the Rajeev Gandhi Swarn Jayanti Pathshala

Scheme. The respondent No.3 vide letter dated 21.5.1999

Annex.1 directed the respondent No.4 to select a well qualified and suitable person to hold the post of Shiksha Sahyogi in the

Rajeev Gandhi Swarn Jayanti School and then to send him for training at Govt. Senior Secondary School, Sardarshahar for the period commencing from 27.5.1999 to 25.6.1999. The respondent No.4, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Bhanipura in the meeting of Gram Sabha held on 1.5.1999 considered the case of the petitioner and selected him for the said post and was sent for training vide Annex.2. However, subsequently, by order Annex.3 dated 25.6.1999, the petitioner was removed from the training camp without assigning any reason. The petitioner had worked on the said post for three months i.e. from July to September, 1999 and thereafter he was removed from service without affording an opportunity of hearing against the principles of natural justice. A notice for demand of justice was served on the respondents vide Annex.4 but no heed was paid by the respondents. Hence this writ petition.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that a meeting of the Gram Sabha of Gram Panchayat,

Bhanipura, was held on 1.5.1999 and in the said meeting only four persons appeared namely Ramesh Kumar, the petitioner, Jai

Narayan, Rewat Ram and Amilal and the Gram Sabha of the

Panchayat resolved to select and appoint the petitioner on the post of Shiksha Sahyogi. The petitioner has placed on record the

Resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated 1.5.1999 Annex.5.

On perusal of the Resolution Annex.5 dated 1.5.1999 it appears that only four persons named above appeared in the said meeting for the post of Shiksha Sahyogi including the petitioner and the petitioner was selected. Subsequently, with a different hand writing and different pen and ink, some interpolation has been made in between the lines in small letters adding the name of Bhanwar Lal S/o Phularam and in order to accommodate Bhanwar Lal, the services of the petitioner have been terminated. Various documents available on record clearly go to show that Bhanwar Lal did not appear before the Gram

Sabha of the Panchayat on 1.5.1999 and only four persons appeared and out of four persons the petitioner was selected, yet the respondent No.4 who is the custodian of the record, by interpolation, added name of Bhanwar Lal in small letters in between the lines by different handwriting and different pen and ink. This clearly goes to show that the services of the petitioner have been illegally terminated in order to accommodate Bhanwar

Lal who is none else but the nephew of the Sarpanch respondent

NO.4 at the relevant time. In the circumstances therefore, highhanded act of the then Sarpanch deserves to be deprecated and the order impugned Annex.3 dated 25.6.99 cannot be sustained and the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order removing/terminating the services of the petitioner is set aside and it is directed that the petitioner be reinstated in service on the post of Shiksha Sahyogi with the continuity of the services and consequential benefits. No order as to costs.

(H.R.PANWAR),J. rp


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.