GAJRAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the original petitioner. He is a handicapped person studied upto B. Sc. and B. Ed. and is fully qualified for the post of Teacher Grade II (Maths ). After undergoing due process of selection as provided under the law, he was duly appointed on the post of Teacher Grade II (Maths.) by order dated 27. 2. 99. Accordingly, he joined his duties on 8. 3. 99. He was relieved from his duty during summer vacation by order dated 15. 5. 99. But by an order dated 27. 6. 99, once again he was ordered to join duties upto 14. 7. 99.

(2.) ONE Shaukat Ali filed a writ petition No. 1705/99 before this Court showing the present petitioner as respondent No. 3 making grievance that his candidature was wrongly ignored and Gajraj Singh having lesser merit was appointed on the ground that required certificate was not in the prescribed form. The said petition came up before the learned Single Judge of this Court on 19. 5. 99. Looking to the facts and circumstances of that case and urgency involved in the matter, Mr. M. R. Singhvi was directed to appear for respondents State of Rajasthan and Deputy Director and on that very day i. e. on 19. 5. 99, the matter was disposed of. That writ petition was disposed of finally with a direction to the Deputy Director to consider and decide the representation of petitioner Shaukat Ali. While disposing of the writ petition it was also observed that "in case respondent No. 3 (Gajraj Singh) is to be disturbed, the respondent No. 2 (Deputy Director) will pass appropriate order after hearing respondent No. 3 (Gajraj Singh ). "

(3.) COMING to the merits of the writ petition, we are fully convinced that the respondents-Authorities have totally misread the earlier judgment and order dated 19. 5. 99 passed by the learned Single Judge in favour of Shaukat Ali. By way of passing observations, the learned Single Judge has observed in his order that in case respondent No. 3 is to be disturbed, the respondent No. 2 will pass appropriate order after hearing respondent No. 3. ' The learned Single Judge never directed respondents to disturb the present petitioner. From the impugned notice and the order (Annex. 11) it is clear that they took it as if there was direction from the learned Single Judge to disturb the petitioner. Thus, the impugned order (Annex. 11) has to be quashed.