Rajasthan High Court
Sumi Kumari vs National Project Implementation ... on 2 December, 2021
Bench: Rekha Borana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3502/2018
Sumi Kumari
----Petitioner
Versus
National Project Implementation Andors
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1962/2018
Gunjan Sahai And Ors
----Petitioner
Versus
National Project Implementation Andors
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kapil Bardhar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Singh with Mr. L.M.
Acharya through VC
Mr. Naman Jain for Mr. Vinok Kumar
Gupta, Mr. H.K. Saini, Dy. G.C. (in
SBCWP No.3502/2018)
Mr. Pradeep Mathur, Mr. C.L. Saini,
AAG (In SBCWP No.1962/2018)
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
02/12/2021
The matter comes upon an application (I.A. No.2/2021) filed
by the respondents wherein it has been prayed that the present
writ petition may be decided in the light of the judgment passed
by this Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Sharma and ors. Vs.
Union of India and ors.: SBCWP No.22946/2017 and other
connected matters decided on 06.03.2018.
I have gone through the judgment passed in Sunil Kumar
Sharma's case.
(2 of 3) [CW-3502/2018]
A bare perusal of the same shows that the same has been
decided in light of the judgment passed in the case of Pankaj
Suwalka & Ors. Vs. Union of India, decided on 14.02.2018.
Pankaj Suwalka's case was decided by the Court with the
following findings:
"19. Thus, in light of the statement made by learned
counsel for respondent No.8 as well as Officer
Incharge present in Court and learned counsel for
respondent No.2 that the petitioners who are
otherwise qualified as per the AICTE norms shall not
be substituted by the project employees inducted
through Annexure-4. In accordance with the
aforesaid assimilation of facts and assurances made
by the respondents the present petitions are
disposed of with direction to the respondents that
they shall not substitute the existing
contractual/guest faculties with the project
recruitment of Assistant Professor on contractual
basis for TEQIP. The petitioners shall continue to
governed by their original terms and conditions of
their contract and will remain subject to AICTE
conditions."
Sunil Kumar Sharma's case has been decided after
considering the above mentioned findings in the case of Pankaj
Suwalka's case. The operative portion of the Sunil Kumar
Sharma's case reads as under:
"In view of the statement made by counsel for
the parties the instant batch of writ application
stands disposed off in terms of the order in the
case of Pankaj Suwalka & Ors. Vs. Union of
India, as extracted hereinabove."
It is crystal clear that both the matters of Pankaj Suwalka
as well as Sunil Kumar Sharma have been decided on the
basis of the statements made by the counsels for the
respondents appearing therein. It is also clear that the rights of
the petitioners have been totally protected in both the matters.
Therefore, the statement of the counsel for the respondents that
(3 of 3) [CW-3502/2018]
the petition of Sunil Kumar Sharma and ors. have been rejected,
cannot be relied upon. The present matter requires consideration
on merits. Therefore, the application as filed by counsel for the
respondents for decision of the matter on the basis of Sunil
Kumar Sharma's matter is rejected.
List these matters for orders on application for vacation of
stay order on 07.01.2022.
(REKHA BORANA),J
pcg/21-22
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
