Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
State Of Rajasthan vs Pankaj Kumar Mishra Son Of Late Shri ... on 9 September, 2020
Bench: Sabina, Chandra Kumar Songara
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
1. D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 419/2019
In
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.22777/2018
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Higher
Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, College Education, Government Of
Rajasthan, Shiksha Sankul, Jln Marg, Jaipur.
3. Joint Director (Hrd), College Education, Shiksha Sankul,
Jln Marg, Jaipur.
4. Principal, Government Arts Girls College, Kota.
----Appellants
Versus
Dr. Saroj Meena W/o Dr. D.d. Meena, Aged About 46 Years,
Resident Of 664, Mahaveer Nagar-Ii, Kota.
----Respondent
2. D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 568/2019 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.23219/2018
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Higher Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Commissioner, College Education, Shiksha Sankul, Jln Marg, Jaipur.
3. Principal, Government College, Sagwara, Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
4. Principal, Government P.g. College, Khetri, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
5. Principal Government College, Neema Ka Thana, Sikar, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
(Downloaded on 11/09/2020 at 09:41:46 PM)
(2 of 4) [SAW-419/2019]
1. Dr. Sonu Sharma W/o Deepak Sharma D/o Shri Kailash Sharma, Aged About 38 Years, R/o 65/25, New Colony, Lane No. 28, Ramganj, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
2. Rajesh Mehra S/o Shri Anandi Lal Mehra, Aged About 33 Years, R/o 430A, Barkat Nagar, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Dr. Rekha Sharma D/o Shri Bal Shastri Sharma, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Plot No. 39, Raghunathpuri, Sainik Marg, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
3. D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 451/2019 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.23403/2018
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Commissioner, College Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Shiksha Sankul, Jln Marg, Jaipur
3. Joint Director (Hrd), College Education, Shiksha Sankul, Jln Marg, Jaipur
4. Principal, Government P.g. College, Dholpur
----Appellants Versus Pankaj Kumar Mishra Son Of Late Shri Girdhari Lal Mishra, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of Mishra Gali, Purana Sahar, Dholpur.
----Respondent
4. D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 468/2019 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.23846/2018
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Higher Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, College Education, Shiksha Sankul, Jln Marg, Jaipur
3. Principal, Government College, Sagwara, Dungarpur, (Downloaded on 11/09/2020 at 09:41:46 PM) (3 of 4) [SAW-419/2019] Rajasthan
4. Principal, Government P.g. College, Bundi
----Appellants Versus Seeta Gehlot, D/o Shri Bharat Singh Gehlot, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Kalinzari Gate, Shahpura, District Bhilwara
----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prakhar Gupta Advocate on behalf of Dr. Vibhuti Bhushan Sharma, Additional Advocate General (through Video Conferencing).
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain Advocate Mr. Gaurav Sharma Advocate (through Video Conferencing).
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA Judgment / Order 09/09/2020 Appellants-State has filed the appeals challenging the order dated 13.02.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, applications moved by the State for vacation of interim order were dismissed.
Order dated 13.02.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge reads as under:-
"No one appears for the State to press the applications (97564/2018, 93294/2018, 97558/2018 & 97562/2018) for vacation. Accordingly, the applications for vacation of stay is dismissed.
Interim order passed by this court shall continue till disposal of the writ petition.
List these cases after four weeks."
(Downloaded on 11/09/2020 at 09:41:47 PM)
(4 of 4) [SAW-419/2019] Learned State counsel has submitted that on the day the impugned order was passed, none had appeared on behalf of the State. Thus, the impugned order was passed in the absence of the State counsel.
Learned counsel for the private respondents have submitted that the interim direction issued by the court has been duly implemented. Private respondents have been permitted to continue in service.
Since, in the present case, the impugned order was passed in the absence of the State counsel, keeping in view the interest of justice in mind, appeals are disposed of with a direction that the State would be at liberty to move a fresh application seeking vacation of interim order, if so advised. (CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA),J (SABINA),J Sanjay Kumawat-10, 11 to 13 (Downloaded on 11/09/2020 at 09:41:47 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)