It was observed that judicial discipline required that once the conviction was confirmed by the Supreme Court that too after hearing the accused, the High Court should not have thereafter made any comment on the merits of the case.
The Court however, noted that neither the copies of the application for withdrawal of resignations nor the order of the Speaker refusing to accept the resignation were placed on record. In addition, the respondents did not even clarify as to what ought to be the fair and reasonable time for taking decision when such resignations are tendered.
Supreme Court has ordered that the Rajasthan High Court's impugned order being interlocutory in nature, shall not be treated as precedent for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner in other cases, and the question of law was kept open to be decided in an appropriate case.
The Rajasthan High Court, after perusing the certificate issued by Association of Indian Universities and the notification issued by Ministry of Education, stated that AIU had issued equivalence certificate with regard to the qualification of the petitioner making the petitioner eligible for the post.
Supreme Court said that prior approval of the Director of Education is mandatory as per Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non-Governmental Educational Institutions Act, 1989, on termination after the disciplinary proceedings.
“Sufficiency of material is one thing and supply of the same is another, which is mandatory in nature. Therefore, the non-supply of the material referred to in the reasons to believe would be enough to render the proceedings bad, even though the material for forming the opinion may be sufficient.” observed the Court.
Moot point for consideration in the case was to examine the total amount of time the Speaker of the House should take to discharge his statutory obligation. The Court granted 10 days’ time to file a reply
“The Courts must certainly step in and thwart any and all kinds of injustice, malafide and/or arbitrary exercise of executive power on the liberty of the citizens of this country; however, in absence of the same, any judicial interference in the domain of the executive, would be unwarranted.”
In the case at hand, the vacancy advertised stood exhausted with the appointment of a candidate, and the petitioner was, hence, held not entitled to the appointment on the post so advertised.
It suffered from non-application of mind and was in violation of mandatory requirement of section 75 (6) of the CGST Act.
The accused had argued that the complainant and her family, out of ill will, had orchestrated the complaint and were extorting the petitioner for their own means and benefits. Rajasthan High Court, however, did not appreciate the fact that the previous complaints filed by the prosecutrix was closed on account of being frivolous and a closure report was also filed in the matter.
Rajasthan High Court: In a case filed by the second wife (petitioner 1) of deceased who was a class IV
Rajasthan High Court: In a case arising from a habeas corpus petition which stands disposed of vide order dated 28-03-2022
Rajasthan High Court: In relation to a petition filed raising certain issues along with an expert committee report submitted on
Yardstick, for extending the benefit of compassionate Appointment should be dependency of the dependents on the deceased government servant and, therefore, their marital status only should not be an impediment for consideration on compassionate ground.
Rajasthan High Court: Vijay Bishnoi, J. held the appeal filed by District Magistrate before Divisional Commissioner under Section 18 of Arms Act,
Rajasthan High Court: In a case where NOC was cancelled by Commissioner, Commissionerate College Education and Technical Education Department, (‘Respondent 2′) granted
Rajasthan High Court: In a case where the secured creditors like Unit Trust of India (‘UTI’) and a workman have preferred their
The President appoints, Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, senior-most Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, to perform the duties of the office
Rajasthan High Court: In a case of an illegal termination of a Manager of Kotak Mahindra Bank being pending for