w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Mukulika Sharma & Others v/s The State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Secondary Education, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- S C SHARMA AND CO PRIVATE LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1948PTC001507

Company & Directors' Information:- SHARMA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999UP2008PTC035620

Company & Directors' Information:- K P SHARMA (INDIA) PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1988PTC045569

Company & Directors' Information:- SHARMA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909WB2017PTC220657

Company & Directors' Information:- P C SHARMA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201DL1981PTC012750

Company & Directors' Information:- J. R. SHARMA & COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U24211DL1966PTC004602

Company & Directors' Information:- M K SHARMA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74994DL1982PTC014090

Company & Directors' Information:- SHARMA AND SHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900DL2015PTC276949

Company & Directors' Information:- SHARMA & CO. PVT LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U28991WB1949PTC018064

    Special Appeal Writ No. 119 of 2020

    Decided On, 10 February 2020

    At, High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench

    By, THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

    For the Appellants: Sarthak Rastogi, Advocate. For the Respondents: Tanveer Ahamad, Banwari Lal Sharma, Namo Narayan Sharma, Advocates, Ganesh Meena, AAG.



Judgment Text


Indrajit Mahanty, C.J.

D.B.Civil Misc. Application No.1/2020:-

The application is allowed.

D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.119/2020:-

Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge has not taken into account the fact of order of transfer suffering from mala fides as the MLA concerned-respondent No.4 in the writ petition was necessary party for deciding the controversy about the transfer order assailed by the appellants. Learned Counsel submitted that the entire case set up by the appellants was on the basis of mala fides specifically alleged against respondent No.4 and as such, the learned Single Judge ought not to have deleted respondent No.4- MLA from array of respondents. Counsel further submitted that the appellants-petitioner had been transferred only on account of political reasons and since respondent No.4 had decided to contest election and accordingly, she has desired certain persons to be posted in her Constituency and as such the entire transfer order is vitiated and learned Single Judge has not looked into this aspect of the matter.

2. Learned Counsel further submitted that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge with respect to stay of the appellants in District Jhunjhunu is also not correct.

3. Learned Counsel submitted that the main writ petition is still pending and if the observations recorded by the learned Single Judge are still kept as part of record, the petitioner appellants would not be able to pursue their case properly before the learned Single Judge and as such request is made to make respondent No.4 as party-respondent in the writ petition and further the impugned order is also asked to be set aside by this Court.

4. We have heard Counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record.

5. This Court finds that the learned Single Judge has taken into account the fact of respondent No.4-MLA to have contested the election in the month of November, 2019 and further the impugned transfer order was said to be passed on 13.09.2019. The learned Single Judge has found that there is no co-relation between transfer of the appellants and contesting the election by respondent No.4.

6. We have also gone through the reply filed by the State before the learned Single Bench where the stay of all the appellants have been mentioned and perusal of this chart filed in the reply to the writ petition annexed by the State, makes it clear that the petitioners have spent their considerable time in District Jhunjhunu alone.

7. This Court without making any comments on merits of the matter, deems it appropriate that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not require any interference. However, the appellants-petitioner w

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ould be free to make submission before the learned Single Judge on merits of the case. 8. Accordingly, the special appeal is dismissed. The learned Single Judge may decide the writ petition independently and not being influenced by order of grant/vacation of interim order passed in earlier writ petition.
O R