SlideShare a Scribd company logo
1 of 2
Download to read offline
Rajasthan High Court
Jitendra Nath Tiwari vs State & Ors on 27 January, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
ORDER
IN
1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4825/1993
{Jitendra Nath Tiwari Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Others}
AND
2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3793/1997
{Jitendra Nath Tiwari Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Others}
Date of Order ::: 27.01.2010
Present
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq
Shri Rajendra Prasad, Counsel for petitioners in both writ petitions
Shri Pradeep Kalwania, Additional Government Counsel for respondents in both writ petitions
####
By the Court:-
These two writ petitions, filed by petitioner Jitendra Nath Tiwari, are directed against orders dated
15.06.1993 and 08.10.1996 passed by Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan,
Jaipur, (for short, 'the Tribunal') in his Appeals No.255/1991 and 238/1992, respectively. The
question to be decided in both these writ petitions, pertains to his service matter, therefore, both
were directed to be clubbed and were heard together and are being decided by this common order.
In Writ Petition No.4825/1993, the petitioner has challenged order dated 15.06.1993, by which his
appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal; in that appeal the petitioner had challenged the order dated
12.01.1990, by which one Shri B.L. Paneri was promoted to the post of Joint Director and petitioner
was superseded on account of adverse remark contained in his APARs for the year 1984-85 and
1988-89. The learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground that adverse entries and
representations against them are not service matters as defined in Section 2(f)(v) of the Rajasthan
Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate Tribunals) Act, 1976.
Subsequent Writ Petition No.3793/1997 was filed by the petitioner against order dated 08.10.1996
of the Tribunal, by which the Tribunal dismissed his appeal; that appeal was filed by the petitioner
against order dated 16.08.1991 of the Secretary, Agriculture Department, Government of Rajasthan,
Jitendra Nath Tiwari vs State & Ors on 27 January, 2010
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/189732/ 1
whereby he was compulsorily retired from service. In retiring him compulsorily from the service, the
Government again considered adverse entries made in his APARS of the years 1984-85 and
1988-89. The learned Tribunal, vide order dated 08.10.1996, dismissed this appeal also.
Shri Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his arguments, cited Full
Bench decision of this Court in Tayyab Ali Vs. State of Rajasthan – 1988 (2) R.L.R. 1, wherein it is
held that while challenging any consequential order based on or influenced by adverse entry,
relating to any of the matters specified in the several sub-clauses of clause (f) of Section 2, the
affected Government servant can also challenge the correctness of the APARs, limitation prescribed
for approaching the Tribunal given in the Act shall have to be reckoned from the date of passing of
consequential order. The learned counsel submitted that the first Writ Petition No.4825/1993 is
therefore required to be remanded back to the Tribunal, as the Tribunal has not correctly
interpreted and followed up the law on the subject and, thereupon, the second matter, would also
require reconsideration if eventually the adverse remarks are quashed, also needs to be remanded
back.
Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition but could not distinguish the Full
Bench decision of this Court in Tayyab Ali's case (Supra). The ratio of that case, in my view, would
apply to the present case with full force.
In the result, both the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 15.06.1993 and
08.10.1996 are set-aside. The matters, subjudice in both the writ petitions, are remanded back to the
Tribunal. Since the appeal, filed in first case, belonged to the year 1991, the Tribunal is expected to
give priority to these matters over any other matter which may have been filed subsequent thereto
and dispose of the same as early as possible.
(Mohammad Rafiq) J.
//Jaiman//
Jitendra Nath Tiwari vs State & Ors on 27 January, 2010
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/189732/ 2

More Related Content

What's hot (10)

Gauhati hc order july 20
Gauhati hc order july 20Gauhati hc order july 20
Gauhati hc order july 20
 
Tasleem ahmed
Tasleem ahmedTasleem ahmed
Tasleem ahmed
 
Saleem khan
Saleem khanSaleem khan
Saleem khan
 
Gulfisha fatima
Gulfisha fatimaGulfisha fatima
Gulfisha fatima
 
Kerala PSC LDC Recruitment 2014-2015 Official Advertisement
Kerala PSC LDC Recruitment 2014-2015 Official AdvertisementKerala PSC LDC Recruitment 2014-2015 Official Advertisement
Kerala PSC LDC Recruitment 2014-2015 Official Advertisement
 
Place of supply of services for inter-state GST - Dr Sanjiv Agarwal
Place of supply of services for inter-state GST - Dr Sanjiv AgarwalPlace of supply of services for inter-state GST - Dr Sanjiv Agarwal
Place of supply of services for inter-state GST - Dr Sanjiv Agarwal
 
Hc order
Hc orderHc order
Hc order
 
Sadakat khan vs state
Sadakat khan vs stateSadakat khan vs state
Sadakat khan vs state
 
Sc order freedom of rel act
Sc order freedom of rel actSc order freedom of rel act
Sc order freedom of rel act
 
Appsc
AppscAppsc
Appsc
 

Similar to Jitendra_Nath_Tiwari_vs_State_&_Ors_on_27_January,_2010 (1).PDF

Cantonment board vs. k.p.singh
Cantonment board vs. k.p.singhCantonment board vs. k.p.singh
Cantonment board vs. k.p.singh
kushal576
 
In the high_court_of_judicature_at_..._vs_the_government_of_tamilnadu_on_28_j...
In the high_court_of_judicature_at_..._vs_the_government_of_tamilnadu_on_28_j...In the high_court_of_judicature_at_..._vs_the_government_of_tamilnadu_on_28_j...
In the high_court_of_judicature_at_..._vs_the_government_of_tamilnadu_on_28_j...
S.Ezhil Raj
 
Aditya Traders vs. ITO Ward-1, Hanumangarh
Aditya Traders vs. ITO Ward-1, HanumangarhAditya Traders vs. ITO Ward-1, Hanumangarh
Aditya Traders vs. ITO Ward-1, Hanumangarh
suresh ojha
 
N.Deenan_vs_The_Collector_on_16_April,_2015.PDF
N.Deenan_vs_The_Collector_on_16_April,_2015.PDFN.Deenan_vs_The_Collector_on_16_April,_2015.PDF
N.Deenan_vs_The_Collector_on_16_April,_2015.PDF
S.Ezhil Raj
 

Similar to Jitendra_Nath_Tiwari_vs_State_&_Ors_on_27_January,_2010 (1).PDF (20)

BEFORE THE HON
BEFORE THE HONBEFORE THE HON
BEFORE THE HON
 
Kerala hc apr 28
Kerala hc apr 28Kerala hc apr 28
Kerala hc apr 28
 
Urgent whistleblower information 14.05.18
Urgent whistleblower information 14.05.18Urgent whistleblower information 14.05.18
Urgent whistleblower information 14.05.18
 
Complaint Document of Widow Asha Rani Devi to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of In...
Complaint Document of Widow Asha Rani Devi to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of In...Complaint Document of Widow Asha Rani Devi to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of In...
Complaint Document of Widow Asha Rani Devi to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of In...
 
Cantonment board vs. k.p.singh
Cantonment board vs. k.p.singhCantonment board vs. k.p.singh
Cantonment board vs. k.p.singh
 
Urgent whistleblower information as filed 14.05.18
Urgent whistleblower information as filed 14.05.18Urgent whistleblower information as filed 14.05.18
Urgent whistleblower information as filed 14.05.18
 
stay
staystay
stay
 
Second Appeal dated 06 04 2017 against SC before CIC New Delhi
Second Appeal dated 06 04 2017 against SC before CIC New DelhiSecond Appeal dated 06 04 2017 against SC before CIC New Delhi
Second Appeal dated 06 04 2017 against SC before CIC New Delhi
 
First appeal under RTI Act 2005 against Registrar (J-I) Supreme Court of Indi...
First appeal under RTI Act 2005 against Registrar (J-I) Supreme Court of Indi...First appeal under RTI Act 2005 against Registrar (J-I) Supreme Court of Indi...
First appeal under RTI Act 2005 against Registrar (J-I) Supreme Court of Indi...
 
Smt_Jayamma_vs_The_State_Of_Karnataka_on_24_January_2020.PDF
Smt_Jayamma_vs_The_State_Of_Karnataka_on_24_January_2020.PDFSmt_Jayamma_vs_The_State_Of_Karnataka_on_24_January_2020.PDF
Smt_Jayamma_vs_The_State_Of_Karnataka_on_24_January_2020.PDF
 
Lawweb.in whether it is necessary to make enquiry us 202 of crpc in case of d...
Lawweb.in whether it is necessary to make enquiry us 202 of crpc in case of d...Lawweb.in whether it is necessary to make enquiry us 202 of crpc in case of d...
Lawweb.in whether it is necessary to make enquiry us 202 of crpc in case of d...
 
Tamilnadu MInimum Wages Hosiery Industry
Tamilnadu MInimum Wages Hosiery IndustryTamilnadu MInimum Wages Hosiery Industry
Tamilnadu MInimum Wages Hosiery Industry
 
In the high_court_of_judicature_at_..._vs_the_government_of_tamilnadu_on_28_j...
In the high_court_of_judicature_at_..._vs_the_government_of_tamilnadu_on_28_j...In the high_court_of_judicature_at_..._vs_the_government_of_tamilnadu_on_28_j...
In the high_court_of_judicature_at_..._vs_the_government_of_tamilnadu_on_28_j...
 
SRO can't refuse Regn.for lack of Prior Documents. HC order james joseph adhi...
SRO can't refuse Regn.for lack of Prior Documents. HC order james joseph adhi...SRO can't refuse Regn.for lack of Prior Documents. HC order james joseph adhi...
SRO can't refuse Regn.for lack of Prior Documents. HC order james joseph adhi...
 
Aditya Traders vs. ITO Ward-1, Hanumangarh
Aditya Traders vs. ITO Ward-1, HanumangarhAditya Traders vs. ITO Ward-1, Hanumangarh
Aditya Traders vs. ITO Ward-1, Hanumangarh
 
AP HC Order.pdf
AP HC Order.pdfAP HC Order.pdf
AP HC Order.pdf
 
N.Deenan_vs_The_Collector_on_16_April,_2015.PDF
N.Deenan_vs_The_Collector_on_16_April,_2015.PDFN.Deenan_vs_The_Collector_on_16_April,_2015.PDF
N.Deenan_vs_The_Collector_on_16_April,_2015.PDF
 
N.deenan vs the_collector_on_16_april,_2015
N.deenan vs the_collector_on_16_april,_2015N.deenan vs the_collector_on_16_april,_2015
N.deenan vs the_collector_on_16_april,_2015
 
Criminal Appeal Diary No. 32273 dated 29.08.2018 before SC
Criminal Appeal Diary No. 32273 dated 29.08.2018 before SCCriminal Appeal Diary No. 32273 dated 29.08.2018 before SC
Criminal Appeal Diary No. 32273 dated 29.08.2018 before SC
 
Kerala hc judgment sept 8
Kerala hc judgment sept 8Kerala hc judgment sept 8
Kerala hc judgment sept 8
 

More from rajeev kumar tiwari (20)

IFC-Application-Form-20151617
IFC-Application-Form-20151617IFC-Application-Form-20151617
IFC-Application-Form-20151617
 
VigWeek_191015
VigWeek_191015VigWeek_191015
VigWeek_191015
 
INPACT-20-Oct-2015
INPACT-20-Oct-2015INPACT-20-Oct-2015
INPACT-20-Oct-2015
 
Event
EventEvent
Event
 
Rajiv010915-1
Rajiv010915-1Rajiv010915-1
Rajiv010915-1
 
rajeev kumartiwari
rajeev kumartiwarirajeev kumartiwari
rajeev kumartiwari
 
brochure_seminar
brochure_seminarbrochure_seminar
brochure_seminar
 
25monday-market
25monday-market25monday-market
25monday-market
 
FIB8E7A24AAA67C424BBCC05325DAEAA8F2
FIB8E7A24AAA67C424BBCC05325DAEAA8F2FIB8E7A24AAA67C424BBCC05325DAEAA8F2
FIB8E7A24AAA67C424BBCC05325DAEAA8F2
 
FR083C77A1509C1C48439B642BC6908A6183
FR083C77A1509C1C48439B642BC6908A6183FR083C77A1509C1C48439B642BC6908A6183
FR083C77A1509C1C48439B642BC6908A6183
 
SPFIB08A57E6BFBD2E545D488962C43CF3A85B9
SPFIB08A57E6BFBD2E545D488962C43CF3A85B9SPFIB08A57E6BFBD2E545D488962C43CF3A85B9
SPFIB08A57E6BFBD2E545D488962C43CF3A85B9
 
Important Phone Numbers
Important Phone NumbersImportant Phone Numbers
Important Phone Numbers
 
RulesBharatRatna&PadmaAwards_0
RulesBharatRatna&PadmaAwards_0RulesBharatRatna&PadmaAwards_0
RulesBharatRatna&PadmaAwards_0
 
fictious_offer
fictious_offerfictious_offer
fictious_offer
 
facult feedback form
facult feedback formfacult feedback form
facult feedback form
 
NITI_CE
NITI_CENITI_CE
NITI_CE
 
O-2196-1955-0003-100533
O-2196-1955-0003-100533O-2196-1955-0003-100533
O-2196-1955-0003-100533
 
E-2233-1954-0001-103507
E-2233-1954-0001-103507E-2233-1954-0001-103507
E-2233-1954-0001-103507
 
Format_ApplicationForm_1
Format_ApplicationForm_1Format_ApplicationForm_1
Format_ApplicationForm_1
 
act
actact
act
 

Jitendra_Nath_Tiwari_vs_State_&_Ors_on_27_January,_2010 (1).PDF

  • 1. Rajasthan High Court Jitendra Nath Tiwari vs State & Ors on 27 January, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN 1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4825/1993 {Jitendra Nath Tiwari Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Others} AND 2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3793/1997 {Jitendra Nath Tiwari Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Others} Date of Order ::: 27.01.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Rajendra Prasad, Counsel for petitioners in both writ petitions Shri Pradeep Kalwania, Additional Government Counsel for respondents in both writ petitions #### By the Court:- These two writ petitions, filed by petitioner Jitendra Nath Tiwari, are directed against orders dated 15.06.1993 and 08.10.1996 passed by Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur, (for short, 'the Tribunal') in his Appeals No.255/1991 and 238/1992, respectively. The question to be decided in both these writ petitions, pertains to his service matter, therefore, both were directed to be clubbed and were heard together and are being decided by this common order. In Writ Petition No.4825/1993, the petitioner has challenged order dated 15.06.1993, by which his appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal; in that appeal the petitioner had challenged the order dated 12.01.1990, by which one Shri B.L. Paneri was promoted to the post of Joint Director and petitioner was superseded on account of adverse remark contained in his APARs for the year 1984-85 and 1988-89. The learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground that adverse entries and representations against them are not service matters as defined in Section 2(f)(v) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate Tribunals) Act, 1976. Subsequent Writ Petition No.3793/1997 was filed by the petitioner against order dated 08.10.1996 of the Tribunal, by which the Tribunal dismissed his appeal; that appeal was filed by the petitioner against order dated 16.08.1991 of the Secretary, Agriculture Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jitendra Nath Tiwari vs State & Ors on 27 January, 2010 Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/189732/ 1
  • 2. whereby he was compulsorily retired from service. In retiring him compulsorily from the service, the Government again considered adverse entries made in his APARS of the years 1984-85 and 1988-89. The learned Tribunal, vide order dated 08.10.1996, dismissed this appeal also. Shri Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his arguments, cited Full Bench decision of this Court in Tayyab Ali Vs. State of Rajasthan – 1988 (2) R.L.R. 1, wherein it is held that while challenging any consequential order based on or influenced by adverse entry, relating to any of the matters specified in the several sub-clauses of clause (f) of Section 2, the affected Government servant can also challenge the correctness of the APARs, limitation prescribed for approaching the Tribunal given in the Act shall have to be reckoned from the date of passing of consequential order. The learned counsel submitted that the first Writ Petition No.4825/1993 is therefore required to be remanded back to the Tribunal, as the Tribunal has not correctly interpreted and followed up the law on the subject and, thereupon, the second matter, would also require reconsideration if eventually the adverse remarks are quashed, also needs to be remanded back. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition but could not distinguish the Full Bench decision of this Court in Tayyab Ali's case (Supra). The ratio of that case, in my view, would apply to the present case with full force. In the result, both the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 15.06.1993 and 08.10.1996 are set-aside. The matters, subjudice in both the writ petitions, are remanded back to the Tribunal. Since the appeal, filed in first case, belonged to the year 1991, the Tribunal is expected to give priority to these matters over any other matter which may have been filed subsequent thereto and dispose of the same as early as possible. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman// Jitendra Nath Tiwari vs State & Ors on 27 January, 2010 Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/189732/ 2