STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus DINESH KUMAR BHARTI

STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus DINESH KUMAR BHARTI

Where the Screening Committee finds respondent not fit to be confirmed and concurrence of Public Service Commission is not required, termination does not require three months notice under Rule 23A; hence, courts below erred in decreeing suit and appeal was wrongly dismissed on limitation.

Parties
Appellant: STATE OF RAJASTHAN; Respondent: DINESH KUMAR BHARTI
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 January 1997
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Ad Hoc Appointment, Regularisation of Service, Termination, Screening Committee, Limitation, Notice Requirements
Service Law Ad Hoc Appointment Regularisation of Service Termination Screening Committee Limitation Notice Requirements

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Appellant

DINESH KUMAR BHARTI

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether termination of ad hoc teacher’s service required three months notice under Rule 23A of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951
  2. 2 Whether consultation with Public Service Commission was necessary for termination
  3. 3 Whether High Court correctly dismissed second appeal on limitation

Ratio Decidendi

Where the Screening Committee finds respondent not fit to be confirmed and concurrence of Public Service Commission is not required, termination does not require three months notice under Rule 23A; hence, courts below erred in decreeing suit and appeal was wrongly dismissed on limitation.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of courts below set aside
  • No costs