Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.50 seconds)
Arun Kumar Purohit vs State Of Rajasthan on 19 September, 2022 cites

State Of Rajasthan vs Rekha Kumari on 17 August, 2022

(26 of 42) [CW-8828/2022] Further submissions have been made that the order passed in the case of Rekha Kumari (supra) also suffers from the same aspect of sub-silento, as the Court did not consider the plea raised by the respondents and has wrongly considered that consent has been given by the Panchayati Raj Department to the transfers of the surplus employees and, therefore, the judgment in the case of Rekha Kumari (supra) also is of no avail to the petitioners.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 3 - Cited by 55 - Full Document

State Of Rajasthan vs Mool Shanker on 14 January, 2022

Coming to the provisions of Rule 8, they have been interpreted many times over and its compliance has been held to be mandatory; the reference in this regard may be made to the orders in Kiran Kumari vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14964/2019 decided on 15.01.2020, Krishna Devi vs. State of Rajasthan : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.312/2021 decided on 02.08.2021 and State of Rajasthan vs. Mool Shanker :
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 1 - Cited by 151 - Full Document

State Of Raj And Ors vs Smt Anju Bala Sharma on 8 February, 2018

Further submissions were made that the order impugned dated 15.06.2022 was passed subject to decision in State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Anju Bala : DBSAW No.271/2022, which appeal came to be decided in a Bunch, led by State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Rekha Kumari : D.B.S.A.W. No.284/2022, wherein by judgment dated 17.08.2022, the Division Bench on account of post facto consent given by the Panchayati Raj Department, in the case of similarly placed employees i.e. surplus, upheld the orders of transfer, as in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Mool Shanker (DBSAW No.683/2021, decided on 14.01.2022), it was laid down that post facto consent can also be accorded, however, the fact that for inter district transfer, the consent in terms of Rule 8 (iii) of (Downloaded on 19/09/2022 at 11:53:40 PM) (25 of 42) [CW-8828/2022] the Rules of 2011 was required, has not been negated, rather the same has been upheld and therefore, the requirement of compliance of the provision of Rule 8 in cases of surplus employees, cannot be done away by the respondents and consequently, the orders impugned deserve to be quashed and set aside.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 0 - Cited by 50 - A Rastogi - Full Document

Umed Singh vs State Of Raj. & Ors on 10 March, 2010

A perusal of above order would indicate that by indicating that the petitioners are surplus, orders posting the petitioners from one place to another were passed and made subject to the decision in SAW No.271/2022. The aforesaid appeal (SAW No.271/2022- State vs. Anju Bala) arose from the judgment in Anju Bala vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : SBCWP No.3299/2022 decided on 09.03.2022, wherein the Single Judge on coming to the conclusion that the Division Bench in the case of Samleta (supra), had specifically come to the conclusion that even in the case of transfer of surplus employees, consent was required to be obtained from the Panchayati Raj Department, allowed the writ petitions.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 2 - Cited by 422 - P C Tatia - Full Document

Sarla Sirohi vs State Of Raj. & Ors on 25 August, 2010

Coming to the provisions of Rule 8, they have been interpreted many times over and its compliance has been held to be mandatory; the reference in this regard may be made to the orders in Kiran Kumari vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14964/2019 decided on 15.01.2020, Krishna Devi vs. State of Rajasthan : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.312/2021 decided on 02.08.2021 and State of Rajasthan vs. Mool Shanker :
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 38 - Cited by 468 - V Kothari - Full Document

Rajendra Kumar Tailor vs State Of Raj & Ors on 27 September, 2010

The facts of Ravindra Kumar Tailor vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8828/2022 are being illustratively indicated. The petitioner, a Nurse Grade-II, was appointed by order dated 25.03.2008. During the course of his service, by order dated 03.12.2015 while working at C.H.C., Devli, Tonk, he was posted under working arrangement to A.N.M. Training Centre, Bhilwara. By order dated 31.12.2020, the petitioner was (Downloaded on 19/09/2022 at 11:53:40 PM) (23 of 42) [CW-8828/2022] transferred/posted at A.N.M. Training Centre, Bhilwara by indicating the same as against the post of PHN.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 0 - Cited by 52 - M N Bhandari - Full Document

Krishna Devi vs State Of Rajasthan on 2 August, 2021

Coming to the provisions of Rule 8, they have been interpreted many times over and its compliance has been held to be mandatory; the reference in this regard may be made to the orders in Kiran Kumari vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14964/2019 decided on 15.01.2020, Krishna Devi vs. State of Rajasthan : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.312/2021 decided on 02.08.2021 and State of Rajasthan vs. Mool Shanker :
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 12 - Cited by 45 - D Mehta - Full Document

Samleta vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 14 November, 2017

However, looking to the vehemence on part of the counsel for the State with which the Division Bench judgments in the case of Semleta (supra), Mool Shankar (supra) and Rekha Kumari (supra) irrespective of the fact whether the issue in the form as (Downloaded on 19/09/2022 at 11:53:40 PM) (33 of 42) [CW-8828/2022] now being raised was raised earlier or raised and not pressed, have been labelled as having been passed in sub silento, the issue raised in the present form is being decided.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 0 - Cited by 284 - P Nandrajog - Full Document
1