A.R.LAKSHMANAN, A.K.PARIHAR
State of Rajasthan – Appellant
Versus
Sushil Kumar Natani – Respondent
(2). The State of Rajasthan, through the Finance Commissioner- cum-Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan and two others are the appellants.
(3). The appeal was filed against the order dated 1.6.2001, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 822/1991, filed by the respondent herein, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge, with a direction to the respondent therein (appellants herein, to consider the case of the respondent to give appointment, on the post of Junior Accountant. In arriving at the said conclusion, the learned Judge placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court, in Vivek Goswami vs. State (1), wherein, it was held that if a suitable post was vacant, it was obligatory on the State Govt., u/Rule 5, to give employment, to the applicant. According to the learned Judge, the language of Rule 5, was imperative in nature, and after acquiring requisite qualification and being otherwise qualified, the dependant of a deceased Govt. servant, has to be given suitable employment, against an existing vacancy, if that is n
8. Ravindra Singh vs. The State of Rajasthan (1997 (1) WLC 133 = 1997(1) RLW (Raj.) 139)
9. (1995(1) RLR 481).–Distinguished.
3. Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana (1994(2) SCC 718)
6. State of Rajasthan vs. Umrao Singh (1994(6) SCC 560)
7. State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ramesh Kumar (1994 Suppl (III) SCC 661)
10. State of Bihar and Others vs. Samsuz Zoha and Others (1996 (4) SCC 546)
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.