- (1.) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that reference was made for constitution of Larger Bench as there were two earlier Division Bench judgments in Tayyab Hussain versus State of Rajasthan(D.B. Civil Reveiw Petition No.22/2002) and Miss Altaf Bano versus State of Rajasthan(D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.258/2004) with regard to the controversy- in-question, whereas, in a subsequent Division Bench judgment in State of Rajasthan and others versus Firdos Tarannum 2006 (2) WLC (Raj.) 596, a different view was taken. However, now, the judgment given by the Division Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan and others versus Firdos Tarannum's case has been set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the case has been remanded to this Court for a fresh decision, in accordance with law. Thus, at this stage, nothing survives in this reference, as on date, it can be said that there are no two judgments giving a divergent/different view.
(2.) Learned State Counsel, has also supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners.
(3.) Order dated 27.04.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, reference of the matter was sought to be made to a Division Bench reads as under :- "Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has argued that earlier two division bench judgments of this Court in Tayyab Hussain Vs. State of Rajasthan (DB Civil Review Petition No.22/2002) and Miss Altaf Bano Vs. State of Rajasthan (DB Civil Special Appeal No.258/2004) have not been correctly appreciated in the subsequent division bench judgment of this court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Firdos Tarannum 2006 (2) WLC (Raj.) 596. Besides, learned senior counsel submitted that earlier judgments should be followed in view of subsequent developments, which the petitioners have now by way of additional material placed on record before this Court in the present writ petition namely; subsequent instruction issued by the Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan in 2007 wherein, "Adeeb" and "Adeeb Mahir" qualifications of Urdu granted by Jamia Urdu, Aligarh were treated respectively equivalent to Secondary and Senior Secondary and the order issued by the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions dated 12/7/2010 certifying the fact that Jamia Urdu, Aligarh is a 'minority educational institution' within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004 and, therefore, covered under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. There is third factor, which went un-noticed in Firdos Tarannum supra is that the State Government decided to send all such candidates possessing the qualification of "Adeep-Mahir" and "Moallium-e-Urdu" respectively equivalent to Senior Secondary and B.Ed. for undertaking the Bridge Course, which the petitioners successfully completed. Respondents could not have therefore abruptly removed the petitioners from the post of Prabodhak on which post, they are working since 2008. In view of the aforesaid three division bench judgments, it would be appropriate that this matter is laid before the Division Bench. Petitioners to file additional set of writ petition with documents. Put up on 6/5/2013 before the Division Bench." 3. Thereafter, the matter was listed before the Division Bench of this Court and following order was passed on 01.10.2013:- "The matter has been placed before us in view of the order of the ld. Single Judge dt. 27/04/2013. A bare perusal of the order of the ld. Single Judge indicates that there was an occasion for the Division Bench to examine the controversy on two different point of time but certain points still missed and were not brought to the notice of the Division Bench when it came at later stage for consideration; and the ld. Single Judge, looking to the nature of controversy and the two judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in particular, considered it appropriate to refer the matter to the Division Bench which has come before us. After going through the order of the ld. Single Judge dt.27/04/2013 and the view of two earlier Division Benches of this Court, we are of the view that to resolve the controversy, it will be appropriate that the matter may be considered by the Larger Bench. Registry is directed to place the matter before Hon'ble The Chief Justice on the administrative side for seeking appropriate order.";