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

1972 Supreme(Raj) 260

P.N.SHINGHAL
Deep Chand Jain – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent


JUDGMENT

1. - The petitioners were officers of the Rajasthan Administrative Service and feel aggrieved because they have been retired compulsorily under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 244 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" As the orders of retirement in the two cases are of the same date (July 29, 1972) and are quite similar, and as common questions of law have been raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the two petitions have been heard together and will be disposed of by this common judgment. Fourteen points have been urged for my consideration and I shall deal with them one by one.

2. Before doing so it will be proper to examine the question which arises at the threshold, namely, whether Note 1 appearing below Sub-rule (2) of Rule 244 of the Rules is a part of the sub-rule or is by way of a subsequent executive or administrative instruction in clarification of the basic provision of the sub-rule? The Note appears at the end of the proviso to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 244, in the fourth edition of Rules issued by the Cabinet Secretariat of the State Government, and reads as follows:

The right conferred by Rule 244(2) is intended to be exercise







































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