- (1.) Following matters have been listed today before the Full Bench for consideration (A) D.B. Civil Writ petition No. 3248/2013 with (B) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 175/2015 with (C) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 230/2015 with (D) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 556/2015
(2.) So far as CWP No. 3248/2013 is concerned, the learned Single Judge on 27/4/2013 had passed the following order :- "Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has argued that earlier two division bench judgments of this Court in Tayyab Hussain v. State of Rajasthan (DB Civil Review Petition No. 22/2002) and Miss Altaf Bano v. 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 and Ors. v. Firodos 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 oi 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 25 a ?minority educational institution? within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2001 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 30 possessing the qualification of "Adeeb-Mahir" and "Moallium-e-Urdu respectively equivalent to Senior Secondary and B.Ed. for undertaking the Bridge Courses 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.) The matter having been placed before the Division Bench, the Division Bench on 1.10.2013 has passed the following order :- "The matter has been placed before us in view of the order of the ld. Single Judge dated 27.04.2013. A bare perusal of the order of the Id. Single Judge indicates that there was on 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 Id. 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 Id. Single Judge dated 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". ;