- (1.) On Restoration Application.
(2.) WE have heard learned counsel appearing for the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and the respondent present -in -person. The Special Appeal was dismissed on 28.8.2014 for want of prosecution, on the ground that on many preceding dates, no one had appeared for the appellant. The Court noticed that as many as on eight dates, no one had appeared, for the appellant and that even if the lawyers were abstaining from work, the Advocate General of the State and the State Counsels were required to appear and defend the interest of the State. Learned counsel appearing for the Rajasthan Public Service Commission submits that it was only on three days that he had taken adjournment. On the rest of the dates, no one had appeared for either the appellant or respondent and thus, considering the fact that the question involved in the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Kaila Kumar Paliwal & Anr., : AIR 2007 SC 1746, the Court may allow the application and hear the Special Appeal.
(3.) WE have gone through the ground taken in the application for restoration of the Special Appeal. The counsel appearing for the State or any other Department of the State is not permitted to plead that he will not present when the lawyers were abstaining from work. It was his duty to defend his client and in case he could not appear, a proper application would have been made. However, considering the fact that the judgment of learned single Judge requires reconsideration, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Kaila Kumar Paliwal & Anr. (supra), we allow the application for restoration on a cost of Rs. 5,000/ - (Rs five thousand only), which will be paid by the Rajasthan Public service Commission to the respondent within one week. On Special Appeal;