STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. CHAND MAL CHAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the learned Singh Judge dated September 17, 2002 in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2920/99 whereby the writ petition was allowed and the State Government was, inter alia, directed to pass appropriate order to facilitate the re-employment of the first respondent from November 4, 1992. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows.

(2.) THE first respondent was posted as Reader in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Merta, District Nagaur. On January 27, 1990 he tendered his resignation from the post of Reader on the ground that he was to contest Assembly Elections. the resignation was accepted by the District & Sessions Judge, Merta on January 29, 1990. Consequent to the acceptance of his resignation he was immediately relieved of the charge of his office. Subsequently, due to certain reasons the first respondent, who had filed his nomination paper, withdraw the same.

(3.) ON July 3, 1993 the Registrar of this Court sought a clarification from the Law Department of the State of Rajasthan as to whether or not the High Court was competent to re-employ the first respondent without the concurrence of the Finance Department. In reply, the Law Department by its letter dated September 19, 1994, inter alia, opined that the High Court itself was empowered to take a decision in regard to the question of re- employment of the first respondent, if it was permissible under rules. Thereafter the High Court considered the matter and by its letter dated June 5, 1999 to the Secretary, Law Department, Government of Rajasthan, pointed out that since the rules relating to re-employment have been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, it is only the State Government which is competent to relax the rules for the re-employment of the respondent. Accordingly, the State Government was requested to accord concurrence so that the first respondent could be re- employed. In reply, the State Government informed the High Court that it was not feasible to re-employ the first respondent. Consequently, the Registrar General by letter dated July 5, 1999 informed the first respondent accordingly. The respondent being aggrieved by the failure of the State Government and the High Court to re-employ him in service preferred a writ petition. The writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge by its judgment and order dated September 17, 2002 with the following directions: " The State Government is directed to pass appropriate order, within period of one month from today, to facilitate the reemployment of the petitioner from 4. 11. 1992 and the petitioner shall not be entitled to the benefits which he agreed to forego by submitting undertaking dated 22. 3. 1993 (Annexure 13 ). The petitioner is also entitled for the costs. " The State Government not being satisfied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, filed the instant special appeal.