SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Prabhu Lal Meena vs Raj.Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam … on 4 April, 2018

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 594 / 2011
Prabhu Lal Meena S/o Shri Harlal Meena, aged about 33 years, by
caste Meena (ST), R/o Dalelpura, Tehsil Naiwan, District Bundi.

—-Appellant

Versus

1. The Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., registered
office Vidhyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary (Administration), Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut
Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Jaipur.

3. The Chief Engineer (T C), Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut
Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Jaipur.

4. The Asstt. Engineer, 132 KV GSS, Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut
Prasaran Nigam Ltd. Mathania, District Jodhpur.

—-Respondents
__
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bhavit Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Purohit
__
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
04/04/2018

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Appointed on contract basis alongwith Kavita Chaturvedi,

Ganesh Ram Meghwal, Om Prakash Meena, Laxmi Narayan, Bhaag

Chand Devanda, Laxmi Narayan Bhambhi and Divya Chouhan as

Junior Engineers, contractual appointment given to the appellant

came to be withdrawn on account of a report received from the
(2 of 3)
[SAW-594/2011]

Superintendent of Police, Bundi regarding character antecedents

of the appellant. The report was that for an offence punishable

under Section 354 IPC appellant had been convicted but benefit of

probation was granted.

3. The challenge to the termination before the learned Single

Judge has failed vide impugned order dated 11.08.2008.

4. The order notes that the appellant was granted benefit of

probation post conviction. The order draws a distinction between

eligibility and suitability. It hold that benefit of probation deals

with eligibility and conviction deals with suitability.

5. The view taken by the learned Single Judge is correct.

6. Eligibility and suitability are different facets.

7. Since the appellant had taken a plea in the appeal that other

contractual employees still continue to work and had been made

permanent, taking into account the fact that the appellant is a

member of Schedule Tribe this Court called upon the respondents

to file an affidavit whether the said assertion was correct.

8. As per the additional affidavit seven other persons named by

the appellant who were taken on contract responded to an

advertisement dated 30.11.2006 inviting applications to fill up

post of Junior Engineer on permanent basis. The said persons

were at serial No.60, 97, 100, 102, 109, 110 and 123 of the select

list prepared and on said account i.e. of qualifying at the regular

selection process they were given appointment on probation as

Junior Engineer.

9. Thus for the reason that posts have now been filled up by
(3 of 3)
[SAW-594/2011]

regular process would be an additional reason to dismiss the

appeal.

10. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR)J. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)CJ.

Ramesh/19

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please CLICK HERE to read Rules of Group, If You agree then Message us on Above Number.

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DVACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA24, 125 CrPc, 307, 313, 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509 etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh