Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Raj. & Anr vs Amar Chand Banjara & Anr on 3 April, 2017
Bench: Govind Mathur, Vinit Kumar Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1366 / 2014
1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, College and Higher
Education, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The Commissioner, College Education, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Appellants
Versus
1. Amar Chand Banjara S/o Lakhaji Banjara, Resident of C/o
Suresh Tripathi, Gangapur, District: Bhilwara (Raj.)
2. Acharya Shri Tulsi Amrit Maha Vidhyalaya, Gangapur,
District: Bhilwara through its Secretary.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rishab Tayal
For Respondent(s) : None present
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Judgment 03/04/2017 This appeal is barred by limitation from 66 days. Ignoring the same, we have examined merits of the case.
Learned Single Bench by the order impugned dated 06.05.2014 while accepting the petition for writ preferred by the petitioner (respondent herein) directed the appellant-State to consider case of the petitioner for absorption of his service as Lower Division Clerk as per provisions of the Rajasthan Voluntary Rural Education Service Rules, 2010.
(2 of 2) [SAW-1366/2014] The only argument advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is that the petitioner was not working with the aided institution concerned against an approved post, therefore, he is not entitled to be absorbed in service created under the Rules of 2010. We do not find any merit in the argument advanced.
From perusal of the facts, it is apparent that an appointment was accorded to the petitioner on 26.05.1996 and thereafter since 19.07.2005 he was working against a post receiving aid from the Government of Rajasthan and his appointment was also endorsed by the Director, College Education, under an order dated 19.07.2005. In view of this factual background, we do not find any reason to treat the petitioner as a person not working against an approved post. Thus, the order impugned does not suffer from any wrong that may warrant interference in appellate jurisdiction. The appeal hence is dismissed.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR)J. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil Kumar Choudhary