Rajasthan High Court Weekly Roundup: May 2 To May 8, 2022

Nominal Index Sudarshan Purohit v. The Hon'ble High Court For Judicature Of Rajasthan & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 154 Bharat Sharma v. State Of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 155 Prem Chand Deshantri v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 156 Mahendra Yadav & Anr. v. Bhagwan Devi & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 157 Kumar Indu Bhushan v. Union Of India and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 158 Azaz Khan v. N.I.A. through Special PP and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 159 Judgments/ Orders 1. Rajasthan Judicial Service: High Court Dismisses Review Petition Challenging Answer Key Of 2021 Preliminary Exam As 'Misconceived' Case Title: Sudarshan Purohit v. The Hon'ble High Court For Judicature Of Rajasthan & Anr. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 154 The Rajasthan High Court on Thursday dismissed a review petition challenging the answer key of Preliminary Examination for selection to the post of Rajasthan Civil Judge. The review petition was filed against the order dated 08.04.2022, whereby the division bench had dismissed a batch of writ petitions questioning the correctness and validity of the merit list prepared after Preliminary Examination in the matter . Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sameer Jain, while dismissing the review petition as it being 'misconceived', observed, "The argument of learned counsel for the review petitioner is utterly misconceived in law. This Court on the factual premise that upon objection received on the correctness of the model answer key of question no.A-66/B-49/C-58/D-39, the expert body had considered objection and it opined that the question was with regard to the date on which the Act was published and therefore with reference to the question, the date of publication was relevant not the date on which it was brought into force and effect in exercise of powers under Section 1(1) of the Act." 2. 'Frivolous': High Court Imposes 25K Cost On PIL Challenging Dr. Anula Morya's Appointment As VC Of Rajasthan Sanskrit UniversityCase Title: Bharat Sharma v. State Of Rajasthan Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 155 The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the appointment of Dr. Anulya Morya as Vice Chancellor of Jagadguru Ramanandacharya Rajasthan Sanskrit University. The petitioner argued that Dr. Morya does not possess statutorily prescribed experience of teaching the post graduate classes for a period of ten years, and therefore, has illegally usurped the public office of Vice Chancellor. In this regard, the petitioner placed reliance on UGC regulations called the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010) Regulations 2010 as also the Jagadguru Ramanandacharya Rajasthan Sanskrit University, Jaipur (Amendment Ordinance), Ordinance 2018. Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sameer Jain, ruled, "This petition, if we may say so, not only lacks proper pleadings but also on the face of it is frivolous. Therefore, we are not inclined to issue notice in this petition and dismiss the same with the cost of Rs.25,000/-." 3. Litigant Can't Keep Waiting For Adjudication If Competent Forum Not Functioning: Rajasthan High Court Refuses To Dismiss Writ In Service Matter Case Title: Prem Chand Deshantri v. Union of India Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 156 "It cannot be assumed that a litigant would keep waiting for the adjudication of his disputes, if the competent Forum or the Authority is not functioning," the Rajasthan High Court observed recently. The remarks were made by Justice Rekha Borana while hearing an application filed by the Centre seeking dismissal of a petition relating to recruitment in Civil Service, on the ground of alternate remedy. The petition was filed before the High Court due to admitted vacancy in Central Administrative Tribunal at the time. The Bench, while dismissing the application filed by the respondents, observed, "Therefore, any litigant cannot be left remediless. It cannot be assumed that a litigant would keep waiting for the adjudication of his disputes, if the competent Forum or the Authority is not functioning. It cannot also be the intention of the legislation to make a litigant suffer because of the inaction or lacuna on the part of the system. The fact of the CAT not functioning at the relevant time being not disputed, the dismissal of the writ petition at this stage i.e. after four years of filing of the same and being entertained by this Court, would not be in the interest of justice now only on the ground of alternative remedy." 4. Bar Expected To Advise Parties Against Pursuing "Lumber Litigation", Save Judicial Time: Rajasthan High CourtCase...

Rajasthan High Court Weekly Roundup: May 2 To May 8, 2022

ANIRUDH VIJAY

Tags