Ajay Kumar Joshi & Co. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 23009 of 2001
(From the Judgment and Order dated 18.11.1999 of the Rajasthan High Court in SB (C) W.P. No. 3928 of 1998)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 18.11.1999 of the Rajasthan High Court in SB (C) W.P. No. 3928 of 1998)
Petitioner: Ajay Kumar Joshi & Co.
Respondent: State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Apeal: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 23009 of 2001
(From the Judgment and Order dated 18.11.1999 of the Rajasthan High Court in SB (C) W.P. No. 3928 of 1998)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 18.11.1999 of the Rajasthan High Court in SB (C) W.P. No. 3928 of 1998)
Judges: D.P. MOHAPATRA & P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 30, 2002
Appearances:
Mr. Ranbir Singh Yadav, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Javed mahmud Rao, Mr. P. K. Jain and Mr. Bhava Dutta Sharma, Advocates for the Respondents.
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Constitution
Article 136 – Special leave petition – Permission to file – Petitioners questioning judgment in relation to appointment of teachers whereas petitioners applied for and participated in selection for post of gram sewaks – SLP/appeals in re-spect of gram sewaks already disposed of. Held that permission to file SLP cannot be granted and is refused. (Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, J.
1. On the date of the conclusion of hearing in the batch of special leave petitions this Court passed an order allowing the interlocutory applications for permission to file special leave petitions and for condonation of delay in all the matters. Howev-er, on an examination of the file in this particular case, it is noticed that this case stands on a different foot-
ing and the permission need not be granted. We, therefore, recall the order passed on 12.12.2001 in relation to SLP (C) No. 23009/2001 (arising out of SLP…../2001 (CC 7192/2001)). Accordingly, the following order is passed herein:
Permission to file SLP is refused to the petitioners because they are questioning the judgment in relation to the appointments to the posts of teachers in Zila Parishad, whereas petitioners applied for and participated in the selection for the posts of gram sewaks. In fact, as far as gram sewaks are concerned, there is a separate judgment of the High Court in S.B.(c) Writ Petition No. 6256 of 1999 which has been referred to by the petitioners themselves in the list of dates and synopsis. The SLPs/Appeals filed against the said judgment by some other appointees have been disposed of today. There need not be separate adjudication in this SLP. Thus viewed from any angle, the application for permission to file SLP cannot be granted. The LAs are dismissed.
1. On the date of the conclusion of hearing in the batch of special leave petitions this Court passed an order allowing the interlocutory applications for permission to file special leave petitions and for condonation of delay in all the matters. Howev-er, on an examination of the file in this particular case, it is noticed that this case stands on a different foot-
ing and the permission need not be granted. We, therefore, recall the order passed on 12.12.2001 in relation to SLP (C) No. 23009/2001 (arising out of SLP…../2001 (CC 7192/2001)). Accordingly, the following order is passed herein:
Permission to file SLP is refused to the petitioners because they are questioning the judgment in relation to the appointments to the posts of teachers in Zila Parishad, whereas petitioners applied for and participated in the selection for the posts of gram sewaks. In fact, as far as gram sewaks are concerned, there is a separate judgment of the High Court in S.B.(c) Writ Petition No. 6256 of 1999 which has been referred to by the petitioners themselves in the list of dates and synopsis. The SLPs/Appeals filed against the said judgment by some other appointees have been disposed of today. There need not be separate adjudication in this SLP. Thus viewed from any angle, the application for permission to file SLP cannot be granted. The LAs are dismissed.
