SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(SC) 272

S. A. BOBDE, B. R. GAVAI, SURYA KANT
Rajasthan High Court – Appellant
Versus
Ved Priya – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Sunil Kumar Jain, Abhishek Jain, Anusha Agarwal, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Ranbir Singh Yadav, Puran Mal Saini, Ritesh Patil, Advocates

JUDGMENT :

These civil appeals have been preferred by the Rajasthan High Court against the order dated 16.12.2014 by which a Division Bench of the said High Court dismissed a petition for review of its earlier order dated 09.11.2014 wherein the High Court had allowed the writ petition filed by Ved Priya (Respondent No. 1 – a former judicial officer) and directed his reinstatement with consequential benefits and seniority.

FACTS

2. Respondent No. 1 was recruited into the Rajasthan Judicial Services on 16.07.2002 and appointed as Civil Judge (Junior Division)cumJudicial Magistrate. He was placed on probation for a period of two years w.e.f. 02.08.2002, which was later extended by a further period of two months on 28.07.2004.

3. Certain allegations of misdemeanour and corruption in discharge of judicial functions were received during the probation period against a few judicial officers (including Respondents No. 1), on the basis of which the Registrar (Vigilance) of the Rajasthan High Court called for the records and submitted a report dated 05.08.2004. This report was put forth before the Administrative Committee of the High Court, along with a wealth of other material while it was und


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

None of the cases provided in the list are identified as overruled, reversed, or otherwise characterized as bad law. The primary case, *Rajasthan High Court v. Ved Priya and Another* (2021) 13 SCC 151, is consistently cited as good law and relied upon by various high courts.

The following cases contain references that demonstrate they are being followed as authoritative precedents by courts to decide on matters concerning probation, termination, and judicial review:

* **Abhinav Kiran Sekhon VS State of Punjab - 2024 0 Supreme(P&H) 871:** Followed/Relied upon. The court refers to *Ved Priya* to support legal arguments regarding the evaluation of allegations in service matters.

* **Miss. Akanksha Bhardwaj, D/o. Shri Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj VS State of Chhattisgarh, Through Principal Secretary, Law and Legislative Affairs - 2024 0 Supreme(Chh) 229:** Followed/Relied upon. Citations from *Ved Priya* (paragraphs 14-22) are used as the governing legal standard.

* **Raghvendra Mishra VS Union of India - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 2042:** Followed/Applied. The court uses *Ved Priya* to critique the defendant's procedure, noting it was "against the legal principle discussed in Ved Priya."

* **JAYARAJAN R.C. Versus THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & CHAIRMAN DISTRICT NIRMITHI KENDRA - 2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 24097:** Followed. Explicitly states a "similar view was expressed by the Apex Court in Rajasthan High Court v. Ved Priya."

* **Dishan Singh Dahariya S/o Kalyan Das Dahariya VS State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Law And Legislative Affairs - 2024 0 Supreme(Chh) 568:** Followed. Indicates the Single Judge explicitly "relied upon the decision" in *Ved Priya*.

* **University of Allahabad VS Raghvendra Mishra - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 1658:** Followed. Notes that the Learned Single Judge relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in *Ved Priya*.

* **Ganesh Ram Burman vs High Court Of Chhattisgarh Through Registrar General - 2024 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 18767:** Followed/Cited. The court incorporates specific paragraphs (14-21) of *Ved Priya* as the basis for their decision.

The following items do not represent specific cases with treatment history, but rather statements of legal principles and definitions often derived from the aforementioned case law:

* **R. G. Radhakrishnan VS State Of Kerala Represented By The Principal Secretary To Government, Revenue (Devaswom) Department - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 94:** Establishes the jurisdictional scope regarding writs of quo warranto.

* **Registrar General, Patna High Court VS Pandey Gajendra Prasad - 2012 4 Supreme 39:** Defines the scope of judicial review in departmental proceedings.

* **Khazia Mohammed Muzammil VS State of Karnataka - 2010 5 Supreme 325:** Discusses the principles surrounding probation periods and confirmation.

* **Rajesh Kumar Srivastava VS State of Jharkhand - 2011 2 Supreme 381:** Defines the purpose/rationale of a probation period.

* **PARSHOTAM LAL DHINGRA VS UNION OF INDIA - 1957 0 Supreme(MP) 195:** Defines the interpretation of Article 311 regarding government servants and reduction in rank.

* **State Bank of India VS Palak Modi - 2012 8 Supreme 321:** Provides a distinction between "foundation" versus "misconduct/suitability" in termination cases.

* **Harendra Bahadur Singh VS State of U. P. - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 524:** This entry only lists the case name (*Ved Priya and Another Rajasthan High Court*). While it is clearly the primary subject of the other records, this specific snippet lacks context regarding its specific treatment in that individual document, though it is implicitly being treated as the controlling case law throughout the other records.

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top