MEENAKSHI SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these writ petition shave been filed assailing the order of the Government dated 17.3.2011 pursuant to which the appointment orders of the petitioners dated 14.7.2010 were cancelled and their services were discontinued. The impugned order dated 17.3.2011 has been passed in compliance of the judgment of coordinate bench of this Court in Hari Singh and Others vs. R.P.S.C. and Ors.,2010 4 WLC(Raj) 771. The single Bench by the aforesaid judgment decided as many as 12 writ petitions. The dispute was with regard to correctness of of the authors namely (1) Colonel Taud, (2) Badayuni, (3) Abdul Fazal and (4) Gopinath Sharma, has referred to the war of Haldi Ghati as "Khamnor ka Yudh". The coordinate bench of this Court was persuaded to allow the writ petitions on consideration of the fact that while three different authors have in their books mentioned that it was Abdul Fazal who has called the war of Haldi Ghati as Khamnor Ka Yudh and one of those books has even been approved by the Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer, there is only one author who has mentioned that it was Badayuni who has called the war of Haldi Ghati battle as Khamnor Ka Yudh. On the basis of this conclusion. The coordinate Single Bench of this Court allowed the writ petition with the following directions:

(2.) Learned counsels appearing for the petitioners have argued that impugned order which has effected the removal of petitioners from service has been passed by the respondents without any show cause notice to the petitioners and without providing them opportunity of hearing. It is argued that petitioners were not party to any of the aforesaid 12 writ petitions and therefore judgment of learned Single Judge in Hari Singh, supra cannot bind them. It is argued that RPSC has sent select list to the Government much before the judgment was delivered by this Court and on that basis, the appointment orders were issued by the Government on 14.7.2010 requiring the petitioners to join latest by 31.7.2010. There is no manner in which the petitioners could come to know about pendency of the writ petition and, therefore, judgment of this Court, cannot be made basis to cancel the appointment orders of the petitioners.

(3.) Shri S.P. Sharrna, learned Senior Counel for petitioners cited the judgment of Supreme Court in Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission. vs. Mukesh Thakur and Anr., 2010 6 SCC 759 and argued that Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment held that High Court cannot take upon itself task of examiner or Selection Board and examine the discrepancies and inconsistencies in question papers and evaluation thereof. Learned Senior Counsel also cited the Constitutional Bench judgment of Supreme Court in A.R. Antulay vs. RS. Nayak & Anr., 1988 2 SCC 602 and argued that even the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case held that Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to suo motu direct withdrawal of case from the Court of Special Judge and order for transfer thereof to High Court for speedier trial in breach of principles of natural justice and without affording opportunity of hearing to the accused and such direction of one bench can be set aside by another bench in subsequent appeal.