STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. versus MILAP CHAND JAIN & ANR. ETC.

Citation: [2013] 5 S.C.R. 472 · Decided: 01-05-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 5 S.C.R. 472 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. 
v. 
MILAP CHAND JAIN & ANR. ETC. 
(Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.20363-20368 of 2013) 
MAY 1, 2013 
[GYAN SUDHA MISRA AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Arlic/e 136 - SLPs filed by 
petitioner-State challenging the same order which was the 
C subject matter of challenge in previous SLPs - Held: A fresh 
batch of SLPs against the impugned judgment and order 
against which SLPs were earlier dismissed, cannot be 
enterlained by a coordinate Bench unless the coordinate 
Bench were inclined to take a different view and were to refer 
o the matter to a larger Bench - On facts, although the question 
of law was allowed to be kept open in the earlier matter, no 
discriminatory treatment should be meted out to another set 
of teachers who were affected by one and the same order of 
the State of Rajasthan, wherein the order of the State was set 
E aside by the High Courl and one batch of special leave 
petitions against the same as also Review were dismissed -
The implication of the observation in regard to the fact that 
the question of law was allowed to be kept open was meant to 
be urged in a matter arising out of a subsequent event in 
F which a similar question arose - Insofar as instant SLPs are 
concerned, that is not the situation as the SLPs have been 
filed by the petitioner-State of Rajasthan against the same 
impugned order, which was the subject matter of challenge 
in the earlier appeals - Instant SLPs fit to be dismissed 
G solely on the ground of parity -Practice and Procedure. 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Civil) Nos. 
20363-20368 of 2013. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 29.11.2011 of the High 
472 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. v. MILAP CHAND 
473 
JAIN & ANR. ETC. 
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur bench at Jaipur in D.B. 
A 
Civil Special Appeal (Writ) Nos. 29, 105, 154, 277, 564 & 673 
of 2005. 
WITH 
SLP Nos. 20386-20390, 20373-20377, 20379-20383, 20378, 
B 
20812, 14592 of 2013 and SLP (Civil) No. C.C. No. 9440 of 
2013 and SLP (C) No. 34866 of 2012. 
Dr. Manish Singhvi, AAG (for lrshad Ahmad), Manoj 
Swarup, Lalita Kohli (for Manoj Swarup & Co.) Pragati Neekhra 
C 
for the Petitioners. 
Ashok Gaur, S.P. Sharma, Ranjit Kumar, Abhishek Gupta, 
Ajat Shatru Mina, Sumit Attri, Kiran Suri, S.J. Amith for the 
Respondents. 
The following order of the Court was delivered by 
ORDER 
SLP(C) .. C.C.NOS.7465-7470/2012,8287-8291/2012, 
8403-8407/2012, 8464-8468/2012, 19503/2012, 
SLP(C) No.34866/2012, C.C.No.9200/2013, 
SLP(C) No.14952/2013 
1. Delay condoned. 
2. This batch of special leave petitions are directed against 
the judgment and order of the High Court of Rajasthan dated 
29.11.2011 by which the appeals filed by the petitioner-State 
D 
E 
F 
of Rajasthan were rejected by the Division Bench observing 
G 
therein that the Apex Court has already dismissed the appeal 
of the State against the impugned judgment and order dated 
10.3.2011. This order was passed by this Court in a batch of 
petitions (C.A. Nos.469 of 2007 and C.A. No.470 of 2007) 
H 
474 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013) 5 S.C.R. 
A Thereafter, the petitioner-State filed review petitions against the 
order dated 10.3.2011 passed in the aforesaid petitions in 
which they also raised the grounds on the merit of the matter 
but the review petitions were also dismissed. 
B 
3. Thereafter, instant batch of special leave petitions were 
filed by the petitioner-State challenging the same order which 
was the subject matter of challenge in the previous special 
leave petitions. But it is obvious that a fresh batch of special 
leave petitions against the impugned judgment and order 
C against which special leave petitions were dismissed, cannot 
be entertained by a coordinate Bench unless the coordinate 
Bench were inclined to take a different view and were to refer 
the matter to a larger Bench. 
4. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are of the 
D view that although the question of law was allowed to be kept 
open in the earlier matter, no discriminatory treatment should 
be meted out to another set of teachers who were affected by 
one and the same order of the State of Rajasthan, wherein the 
order of the State was set aside by the High Court and one 
E batch of special leave petitions against the same as also 
Review were dismissed. The implication of the observation in 
regard to the fact that the question of law was allowed to be 
kept open obviously 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.