High CourtsSingle Bench(1993) 02 RAJ CK 0025

MaganLal and Others vs State

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 5 February 1993 · Citation: (1993) WLN 70

HON’BLE JUDGES
A.K. Mathur, J
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 2431 and 2432 of 1985, 113, 114, 205, 208, 370 and 467 of 1986, 1049 of 1997, 726, 3609, 3610, 3844, 3845 and 3846 of 1988

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 300 words

A.K. Mathur, J.—This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed by the petitioners for mandamus, directing the State of Rajasthan and other two respondents not to terminate their services and to regularise them on the ground that the termination of their services in the Directorate of the State Insurance and Provident Fund Department, was illegal and invalid. The termination was occasioned due to the selected candidates having become available to the said Directorate.

2.

In the same controversy, the matter was taken up to Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Surendra Kumar Gyani Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, In that case the Hon''ble Supreme Court negatived the contention of petitioner and disposed of the matter with following observation:

In our view, it is only just and proper if a pragmatic and sympathetic consideration is made in respect of the appellant and the other petitioners in the Special Leave Petitions so that if they have got the requisite qualification like similarly circumstanced persons being eligible for appointment and/or regularisation they also should be considered for appointment and for regularisation against the available vacancies so that useful service rendered by them in past may get proper recognition. It is reasonably expected that State Government should give an anxious and sympathetic consideration to the appellant and the petitioners in the Special Leave Petitions in the matter of appointment in the available vacancies according to the seniority and the length of service rendered by such persons as Daily Rated Lower Division Clerks in the said State insurance and Provident Fund Department by making appropriate provision.

3.

The being so, the writ petitions are disposed of without any order as to costs, on the same terms and conditions as were directed by Hon''ble the Supreme Court, in the aforesaid case.