REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

PARMESHWAR PATIDAR Appellant

V/S

STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

NEELAM W/O RAM KUMAR MEGHWAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. [REFERRED TO]
EMARATA RAM PONIYA & ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
HARPAL KAUR CHAHAL VS. PUNJAB INSTRUCTION & ANR. [REFERRED TO]
MAHARASHTRA STATE BOARD OF SECONDARY AND HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION ALPANA V MEHTA VS. PARITOSH BHUPESHKUMAR SHETH:MAHARASHTRA STATE BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION [REFERRED TO]
SANATAN GAUDA VS. BERHAMPUR UNIVERSITY [REFERRED TO]
SREERAMPPA VS. KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [REFERRED TO]
REKHA CHATURVEDI VS. UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
V K SOOD VS. SECRETARY CIVIL AVIATION [REFERRED TO]
SEEMA KUMARI SHARMA VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA OTHERS VS. CHANDER SHEKHAR ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. HITENDRA KUMAR BHATT [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRAPRAKASH MADHAVRAO DADWA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. ELPHANSTONE SPINNING AND WEAVING CO LTD [REFERRED TO]
G N NAYAK VS. GOA UNIVERSITY [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. NESTLE INDIA LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
DOLLY CHHANDA VS. CHAIRMAN JEE [REFERRED TO]
SHAIN SATELLITE PUBLIC CO LTD VS. JAIN STUDIOS LTD [REFERRED TO]
K H SIRAJ VS. HIGH COURT OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
JAI NARAIN PARASURAMPURIA VS. PUSHPA DEVI SARAF [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR SONKAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
CHANDMAL NAURAT MAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
REETA SHARMA VS. UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
NARESH BHANSALI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
RENU SHARMA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE aforesaid writ petition and 75 other the bunch of writ petitions shown in Schedule-A annexed to this order, involve common questions of law and facts and, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, they are being heard and decided together.

(2.) IN SBCWP Nos. 1817/2997, 1819/2007, 1820/2007, 1911/2007, 2114/2007, 2864/2007, 2388/2007, 1899/2007 and 2635/2007, the validity of proviso 2nd to rule 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Rules, 1996 (for short, "the Rules of 1996" hereinafter) has been challenged and in the remaining writ petitions as shown in Schedule-A annexed to this order, the corrigendum Annx.2 dated 30-11-2006, to the extent of imposing the condition to produce B.Ed., BSTC Degrees by the applicant/candidate on the date of declaration of the result of competitive examination for the post of Teacher Grade III in primary/upper primary schools, has been challenged. All the writ petitions are being decided by this common order taking the facts of SBCWP No.1817/2007 as the leading case.

(3.) MR. Rakesh Arora, learned counsel for the petitioners in SBCWP No.1869/2007, submits that at the time of calling of the application forms, the corrigendum has been issued by the respondent on 30-11-2006, which is a contingent and once the respondents have relaxed the condition of eligibility then it cannot make any order prejudice to the interest of the petitioners who appeared in the competitive examination in pursuance of the corrigendum dated 30-11-2006. He has relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Seema Kumari Sharma (MRs.) vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr., (1998) 9 SCC 128; and Sri Sreeramppa vs. The Karnataka Public Service Commission & ors., JT 1991 (5) SC 81.

Click here to view full judgment.

PARMESHWAR PATIDAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address