RAJASTHAN HOMEOPATHIC MEDICINE BOARD JAIPUR Vs. SHARVAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 25th February, 1987, passed in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 86/1986.

(2.) IN this revision petition, the petitioner has come with a case-that there was no budget provision for the post on which the present non-petitioner and some other persons were appointed. He has also submitted that there is no sanctioned strength against which the present non-petitioner can be appointed. It was submitted by Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner that the Registrar, who is an employee of the Government was working as Registrar of the Board. He had appointed non-petitioner and some other persons who are in near relation of the Registrar himself or the office Superintendent, without budget and ignoring the sanctioned strength Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to some of the provisions of the Rajasthan Homeopathy Medicine Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). Board was constituted under the provisions of the Act, and the Registrar was appointed by the State Government.

(3.) IN the result, this revision petition is accepted. The order passed by the learned Additional Distt. Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 25. 2. 1987, is set aside and the order passed by the learned Addl. Munsif and Judicial Magistrate (Est.), Jaipur is restored. I would like to make it very clear that all persons should be treated equally and there should not be any discrimination. More than one persons have been given appointment beyond the sanctioned strength and without the budget provisions. All persons should be equated in such matters and if the Board fails to equate them respondents in the present petition will have a right to re-agitate the matter on the ground of discrimination. It is further directed that the Board, shall determine the position within a period of six weeks. It is further directed that in case 4 persons have been appointed without sanctioned strength then all must go. If the Board allows some persons appointed beyond the sanctioned strength, then the principle of law that last come first go should be applied. It is further directed that the State Government should take note of the submissions made by Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner that the officer on deputation has acted beyond his power and has appointed persons beyond sanctioned strength and budget, if it is so the State Government should take action against the said officer, who has violated the provisions of the Act and law by appointing the persons beyond sanctioned strength and budget.