Jai Narain Vyas University vs Bhanwar Singh ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3894 Raj

[2023/RJJD/012911]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 22/2022

1. Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur.

2. Registrar, Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

----Appellants Versus Bhanwar Singh S/o Shri Inder Singh, Resident Of Inder Niwas, Paota B Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. M.C. Bishnoi. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anita Rajpurohit for Mr. Manvendra Singh Bhati.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI

Order

02/05/2023

1. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the defects

pointed out by the office are waived.

2. This special appeal is directed against the order dated

25.11.2021 passed by learned Single Judge, wherein, following

the order in the case of Jitendra Kumar v. Jai Narain Vyas

University, Jodhpur & Anr.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8660/2011,

decided on 13.12.2013, the writ petition filed by the respondent

was allowed with similar directions.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant attempted to make

submissions that the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of

Jitendra Kumar (supra), which came to be upheld by Division

Bench in Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur & Anr. v. Jitendra

Kumar: D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.354/2014, decided on

[2023/RJJD/012911] (2 of 2) [SAW-22/2022]

18.7.2014, wherein, in similar matters Special Leave Petitions filed

by the University also have been rejected by Hon'ble Supreme

Court, was not applicable to the case of the petitioner.

4. Learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, came to the

conclusion that the plea raised regarding inapplicability of

judgment in the case of Jitendra Kumar (supra) on the basis that

the petitioner was appointed on the post of LDC through a

placement agency, has specifically been considered by the Division

Bench and, therefore, the plea raised in this regard had no

substance.

5. Learned counsel failed to distinguish the present case from

that of Jitendra Kumar (supra) on the plea as raised before the

learned Single Judge.

6. In that view of the matter, no case for interference in the

judgment impugned is made out. The appeal has no substance.

The same is, therefore, dismissed.

(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J (ARUN BHANSALI),J 11-Sumit/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)