Rajasthan High Court Quarterly Digest: July - September, 2024

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 137 To 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 282Orders/JudgmentsS.138 NI Act | Rajasthan High Court Permits Correction Of Date Of Presentation And Dishonour Of Cheque In Complaint PetitionTitle: Mahaveer Prasad Suman v Lalit Mohan SharmaCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 137Rajasthan High Court allowed a petition seeking amendment in a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act and affidavit annexed to correct the typographical errors in relation to the dates of presentation and dishonour of cheque.The bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman relied upon the Supreme Court case of S.R. Sukumar v Sunaad Raghuram, in which it was held that even if there is no specific provision in CrPC to amend a complaint or a petition, petitions seeking such amendments to correct the curable infirmities can be allowed. “If the amendment sought to be made relates to a simple infirmity which is curable by means of a formal amendment and by allowing such amendment, no prejudice could be caused to the other side, notwithstanding the fact that there is no enabling provision in the Code for entertaining such amendment, the Court may permit such an amendment to be made.”Lok Adalats Don't Have Adjudicatory Powers: Rajasthan High Court Sets Aside Award Permitting Withdrawal Of Criminal ProsecutionTitle: Meenu Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 138Rajasthan High Court reiterated that Lok Adalats do not have adjudicatory powers and hence order of a Lok Adalat allowing withdrawal of a criminal prosecution cannot be sustined.The bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman referred to an identical case of Shyam Bacchani v State of Rajasthan & Ors decided by a coordinate bench of the Court where it was held that Lok Adalats had no adjudicatory powers and while allowing the withdrawal of a criminal prosecution, it exercised adjudicatory jurisdiction which was contrary to law. The Case analysed the provisions on organisation of Lok Adalats as well as on cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats provided under Sections 19 and 20 respectively of Chapter VI of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987.Continuous Work Of Contractual Employees Does Not Create Any Vested Right For Permanent Employment: Rajasthan High Court ReiteratesTitle: Amita Singh and Ors. v State of Rajasthan and Ors.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 139Rajasthan High Court (“the Court”) affirmed that individuals hired on a contractual basis through a placement agency do not have any vested interest in being employed by the government. The Court relied upon the Supreme Court case of K.K Suresh and Anr. v Food Corporation of India to arrive at this position.The bench of Justice Sameer Jain relied on the case of Ganesh Digamber Jhambhrundkar and Ors. v State of Maharashtra and Ors. in which it was held that rendering services for a long time did not entitle the contractual employees to get a vested right of employment in their favour. The Court said: “We appreciate the argument of the petitioners that they have given best part of their life for the said college but so far as law is concerned, we do not find their continuous working has created any legal right in their favour to be absorbed.”Govt Cannot Disqualify Candidate Based Grounds Which Are Not Mentioned In Advertisement For Job Post: Rajasthan High CourtTitle: Sumitra Kumari v The Department of Medical, Health and Family Welfare, Government of RajasthanCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 140The bench of Justice Ganesh Ram Meena at the Rajasthan High Court (“the Court”) has set aside an order of the Department of Medical, Health and Family Welfare, Government of Rajasthan (“the Department”) that rejected a candidate for a government post on the ground that the reason for disqualification was not mentioned as a disqualification criterion in the advertisement for the post. The Court termed the order as wholly illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. It said: “The ground of rejection of the candidature of the petitioner seems to be wholly illegal and arbitrary for the reason that nowhere the terms and conditions of the advertisement speaks about the qualification and professional training from any particular Board.”Rajasthan Bovine Animal Act | High Court Asks Govt To Add Provision Of Appeal Against Confiscation Of Vehicle Illegally Transporting CattleTitle: Rameshwar & Ors. v State of RajasthanCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 141Perusing orders passed by District Collector under Section 6A of the Rajasthan Bovine Animal Act for confiscation of conveyance used to transport bovine animals without permit, the Rajasthan High Court called upon the State legislature to introduce a provision of appeal.The bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal held that it was never the intention of the State legislature to render any finality to the order of the Competent Authority passed under Section 6-A and not to provide any remedy of appeal or revision thereagainst in the Act."In the opinion of this Court, the order passed by the Competent Authority, it means the...

Rajasthan High Court Quarterly Digest: July - September, 2024

Nupur Agrawal

Tags