Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Nitin Gupta And Ors vs State Of Raj & Ors on 24 January, 2011
Author: Mohammad Rafiq
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN 1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5799/2010 Smt. Suchitra Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Others 2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5769/2010 Gopal Lal Salvi and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others 3. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5461/2010 Mukesh Kumar Sharma & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others 4. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5468/2010 Rajveer Singh Meena and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others 5. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5469/2010 Rajesh Mehra and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others 6. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5513/2010 Sheli Sharma and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others 7. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5551/2010 Raj Kumar Vanawat and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others 8. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5717/2010 Nitin Gupta and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others 9. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5982/2010 Satish Sharma and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others 10. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6045/2010 Rekha Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others 11. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6102/2010 Dr. Sadhana Gupta and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others 12. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6115/2010 Miss. Kamini Raria Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others 13. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6514/2010 Richa Bhardwaj and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others 14. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6772/2010 Satish Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others 15. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5561/2010 Hansraj and Others Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Others 16. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6042/2010 Komal Lata Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others Date of Order ::: 24.01.2011 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Banwari Sharma, Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, Shri Ashok Gaur, Sr. Advocate, Shri Sudhir Jain, Shri Rinesh Gupta, Shri R.P. Vijay, Shri Harsh Saini, Shri Rajvir Sharma, Shri Tarun Choudhary, counsel for petitioners Shri N.A. Naqvi, Additional Advocate General with Shri Anant Bhandari, Deputy Government Counsel, for respondents #### By the Court:-
Point involved in present writ petitions is that whether petitioners, who were appointed on post of Lecturers for a period of six months or till availability of duly selected candidates from Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short, 'RPSC'), have a right to continue in service.
Learned counsel for respondents submitted that this court has decided two identical writ petitions, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5238/2009 Ms. Savita Samriya Vs. State and Others, decided on 22.05.2009 along-with a bunch of 31 writ petitions, and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2980/2009 Smt. Suchitra Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, decided on 17.07.2009, and therefore in the light of those judgments, counsel for petitioners have argued that petitioners' appointments could be replaced only if and when selected candidates from RPSC become available and not by transferring substantive lecturers from other colleges. In this connection learned counsel cited judgment dated 22.05.2009 of coordinate bench of this court in Ms. Savita Samriya's case.
In Civil Writ Petition No.6771/2010 Aruna Verma Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, decided on1 9.01.2011, this court considered all these arguments including various judgments cited by learned counsel for petitioners and passed the following order:-
10) Now that the academic session 2009-10 has already come to an end, petitioner, if there is no vacancy available with the respondents, cannot be continued on the post of Lecturer (Mathematics) in the respondent-college particularly when after end of session 2009-10 and beyond the period thereof for which respondents did not execute any contract with the petitioner for engaging him further. Respondents would have filled up the vacancies by appointing there against either any newly appointed Lecturers selected from the RPSC or by transferring any other substantive Lecturer. However, petitioner has sought to justify her continuation on the basis of the order passed by the Joint Director dated 7/11/2007 to say that one additional post of Lecturer (Mathematics) was still available in the respondent-college but that order mentions that this post was created purely on ad hoc temporary/contract basis. Counsel for petitioner further placed reliance on the letter of the Principal of the College addressed on 9/10/2009, which letter states that there are two sanctioned posts of Lecturer (Mathematics) and therefore they sought guidance from the Directorate whether in the face of availability of one post of substantive Lecturer, another Lecturer against the post created for contract appointment can be continued. Apparently, this letter was written by the Principal in response to the order passed by the Directorate dated 7/11/2007 referred to supra and the Principal after receiving desired clarification from the Directorate, passed the impugned-order dated 9/12/2009, which fact has been clarified by the respondents in their reply that there was some confusion for which, clarification was sought by the Principal and for which reason, petitioner was continued upto 9/12/2009. But thereafter also petitioner was continued in service, albeit under the interim-order of this Court dated 12/5/2010 passed in the present writ petition. As already discussed above, pursuant to the judgment of this Court in Ms.Savita Samriya supra, petitioner was liable to be continued till the end of academic session 2009-10 only.
11) In view of above, petitioner is held entitled to receive whatever benefits she has already drawn pursuant to the interim-order of this Court dated 12/5/2010 but for the rest however, writ petition is dismissed. Respondents however are directed to release the salary of the petitioner, if any due, within a period of two months from the date copy of this order is produced before the respondents.
In light of above, all these writ petitions are disposed of with direction to respondents to continue petitioners in service till vacancies remain with them. However, they can be replaced by candidates either duly selected from RPSC or by transferring substantively appointed candidates from other colleges. It is also directed that petitioners shall be entitled to salary for period they have worked under interim order passed by this court or for the period in future they work, till availability of vacancies in terms of directions contained in aforesaid judgment in Aruna Verma's case.
Writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.
(Mohammad Rafiq) J.
//Jaiman//