Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Ravindra Kumar Sharma vs State Of Raj & Ors on 6 March, 2012

Author: Arun Mishra

Bench: Arun Mishra

    

 
 
 

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

JUDGMENT

D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(WRIT) NO. 658/2011
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5978/2011

RAVINDRA KUMAR SHARMA
VS. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT                :                           06.03.2012

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ARUN MISHRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I

Mr. Chiranji Lal Saini, for the appellant.
Mr. K. Verma, Dy. Government Counsel, for the respondents.

BY THE COURT:(PER HON'BLE JAIN, J.)

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This intra Court appeal is directed against order dated 04.05.2011 passed by Single Bench, whereby writ petition filed by the petitioner/appellant, challenging his termination order dated 10.02.2011(Annexure-3), has been dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy available before Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal(for short 'the Tribunal').

3. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that appellant's main prayer in the writ petition was that respondents be directed to absorb the petitioner in Government service under the Rajasthan Voluntary Rural Education Service Rules, 2010 and for the said relief, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to pass any order, therefore, Single Bench committed an illegality in dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner on the ground of alternative remedy. He also submitted that even if alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, then the same is not a bar for filing writ petition directly before this Court.

4. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, examined the impugned order and also the documents available on record.

5. The petitioner/appellant prayed for following relief in the writ petition:

i) the respondents may kindly be directed to absorb the petitioner in government service under the Rajasthan Voluntary Rural Education Service Rules, 2010;
ii) the order dated 10.2.2011(Annexure-3) issued by the respondent no. 3 whereby the services of the humble petitioner have been terminated may kindly be ordered to be declared void-ab-initio and the same may kindly be ordered to be quashed and set aside;
iii) any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit may also be passed in the facts and circumstances of the case.

6. From the above, it appears that the petitioner prayed for his absorption in Government service and simultaneously also challenged his termination order dated 10.02.2011. It is pertinent to mention that an employee, who is in service, can be considered for absorption. The service of the petitioner has been terminated, therefore, unless the order of his termination is set aside, his case for absorption in service cannot be considered. In these circumstances, the main prayer in the writ petition appears to be about quashing of his termination order dated 10.02.2011, which is admittedly appealable before the Tribunal. Since impugned order of termination was appealable before the Tribunal and the Single Bench has not entertained the writ petition, therefore, we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order passed by the Single Bench, so as to interfere with the same in this intra Court appeal. This Court, ordinarily, does not entertain the writ petition directly where statutory right of appeal is available before Tribunal. The appellant will have a right to challenge his termination order before the Tribunal and then to come to this Court, if he is not satisfied with the order passed by the Tribunal. In our view, the Single Bench was absolutely right in dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner.

7. In view of above discussions, we do not find any merit in this intra Court appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. Stay application is also dismissed.

              (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I),J.                 (ARUN MISHRA),CJ.
            
              Manoj 

All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.

MANOJ NARWANI JUNIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT