VIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of rejection in the stay application filed by the appellant herein in the writ petition. The writ petition was filed with the following prayers :-

(2.) Along with the writ petition, the appellant filed a stay application requesting this Court to direct the respondents to keep at least one post in the PG Course vacant for physically handicapped persons or in the alternative direct the respondents to keep 3% of seats in the Pre PG Course reserved for physically handicapped persons and also further direct the respondents to provisionally prepare a separate merit list for physically handicapped persons, who have applied for the Pre PG Entrance Test, 2000. The said application was rejected by Justice A. K. Parihar against which the present Special Appeal was filed. A Division Bench of this Court on 19-4-2000 issued notices to the respondents to show cause as to why this appeal should not be admitted and disposed of at this stage. Notice was ordered returnable by six weeks. The Division Bench on the same day issued a direction in stay application No. 1767/2000 in the following terms :-

(3.) We heard Mr. S. P. Sharma learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Narendra Jain learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 3. Learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 3 raised a preliminary objection in regard to the maintainability of the writ appeal. According to the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 3, both the stay applications are liable to be dismissed on the ground that the main special appeal itself is not maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the present case as it is directed against an interlocutory order dated 7-4-2000 passed by the learned single Judge. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 3 that the State has already filed a detailed reply to the writ petition and therefore, the writ petition itself may be directed to be disposed of at an early date. In support of his contention learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 3 invited our attention to Sec. 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, which reads thus :-