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

2001 Supreme(Raj) 855

A.R.LAKSHMANAN, A.K.PARIHAR
State of Rajasthan – Appellant
Versus
Sushil Kumar Natani – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mohd. Refiq, Addl. Advocate General, for Appellants V.D. Gathala, for Respondent

Honble LAKSHMANAN, CJ.–Heard Mr. Mohd. Rafiq, for the appellants; and Mr. V.D. Gathala, for the 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























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