Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Rambabu Sharma vs Rajasthan High Court & Anr on 15 December, 2015
Author: M.N. Bhandari
Bench: M.N. Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8839/2015 Rambabu Sharma Versus Rajasthan High Court & Anr. DATE OF ORDER : 15/12/2015 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Mr. N.K. Singhal, for petitioner Mr. Rishipal Agarwal, Additional Govt. Counsel, for respondents
By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 27th January, 2015, by which the petitioner along with others have been confirmed in service from the date mentioned therein. It is on the post of Stenographer.
Learned counsel submits that petitioner was appointed vide order dated 17th January, 1994 thus should have been made permanent in service from the date of initial appointment and not w.e.f. 8th December, 1999. It is moreso when the condition No.4 of the order of appointment was fulfilled by him by passing the examination conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (in short RPSC). The respondents have ignored the aforesaid. In view of above, impugned order be quashed with a direction to substitute the date of making petitioner to be permanent in service w.e.f. 8th December, 1999. The petitioner should be made permanent in service since 17th January, 1994.
Learned counsel for respondents has opposed the petition. He submits that petitioner was appointed on the post of Stenographer vide order dated 17th January, 1994 on certain conditions. He was required to qualify the test to be conducted by the RPSC but it was never qualified by him. The report submitted by the Subordinate Court is in regard to passing of the test of Stenographer held for State Services and not for the Judicial Services. In view of above, the petitioner could not be made permanent without qualifying the test to be conducted by RPSC. The regularization in service was given w.e.f. 8th December, 1999 after amendment of Rule 31 vide Notification dated 8th December, 1999. The condition of the rule to pass out the test to be conducted by the RPSC was not maintained. In view of aforesaid amendment given effect vide order dated 27th January, 2015, the petitioner has been made confirmed from the date of amendment without requiring him to pass the test. The issue raised herein was otherwise an issue before the Apex Court in regard to same set of rules and was decided against the employee thus petitioner has no case for grant of relief.
I have considered the rival submissions made by the parties and perused the record.
The petitioner was appointed on the post of Stenographer vide order dated 17th January, 1994 on certain conditions. The Condition No.4 requires him to pass examination conducted by the RPSC. It was required as per Rule 31 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986. The petitioner has placed on record a document to show that he not only appeared but passed out the test conducted by the RPSC but it does not show for the Judicial Services. It is for the reason that the post of Stenographer exists in the State Services as well as in Judicial Services but they are governed by different set of rules. The issue aforesaid was considered by the Apex Court and similar plea raised therein was not accepted. It is in the case of Babu Lal Yadav Vs. High Court of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 13th July, 1998. The relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted hereunder Admittedly, the appellant being and employee of Subordinate Civil Courts is governed by the 1986 Rules which relate to recruitment to the cadre of Stenographers in Subordinate Offices of the State Government. The 1986 Rules provide that all persons appointed to the cadre of stenographers by direct recruitment shall be placed on probation for one year held by the Commission his probationary period shall stand extended. Relevant Rule in respect of confirmation of stenographers in the service of Subordinate Courts reads as under:
"28. Probation (1) All persons appointed to any cadre by direct recruitment or promotion against permanent vacancies shall be placed on probation for one year.
provided that a person who has been regularly recruited against temporary post and has put in two years service after such regular recruitment shall not be placed on probation on conversion of such post into a permanent one or on a permanent vacancy being available but he shall be confirmed only after he has fulfilled the conditions of confirmation as laid down in Rule 31:
Provided further that in the case of recruitment to the cadre of Stenographers the probationary period shall stand extended till the stenographers pass the qualifying test held by the Commission, unless he is reverted or removed from service in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30."
The aforesaid Rule makes it clear that unless a stenographer working in Sub-ordinate Civil Court passes the qualifying tested to be conducted by the Commission he cannot be confirmed in the service. The passing of the examination by the appellant for recruitment to the cadre of stenographers in the Subordinate offices under the 1957 Rules would not confer any benefit to him for the purposes of his confirmation as stenographer in Subordinate Civil Court as 1957 Rules are not applicable to the stenographers working in Subordinate Civil Courts. The stenographers of subordinate offices of the State Govt, belong to different class, different service and appointed under the different set of Rules and mere passing of the qualifying test by the appellant for recruitment to the cadre of stenographer to the Subordinate Offices of the State Government is of no consequence for his confirmation under the 1986 Rules. Unless the appellant passes the qualifying test to be held by the Commission under the 1986 Rules, he has to be treated as working on extended probationary period. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the view taken by the High Court in allowing the appeals is not wrong in law but we think it should have passed an order rectifying its administrative laches.
Although nearly 17 years have now elapsed, neither the High Court nor the Commission has taken any steps for holding qualifying test for confirmation of Stenographers in the service. The appellant and similarly situated persons cannot be allowed to suffer on account of the inaction on the part of the High Court and the Commission in not holding the qualifying test for purposes of confirmation of the stenographers in the Subordinate Civil Courts. under such circumstances, we feel that the interest of justice will be met if we direct the High Court of Rajasthan to request the Rajasthan Public Service Commission to hold the qualifying test under the 1986 Rules without any delay. We accordingly direct the High Court of Rajasthan to write to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for holding the qualifying test for Stenographers working in the Civil Subordinate Court, immediately on receipt of certified copy of this order. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission on such request being made by the High Court shall, without any further delay, hold the qualifying test for the Stenographers working in the Civil Subordinate Courts. Since there is inordinate delay in holding the qualifying test, we direct that the services of the appellant shall not be dispensed with, except for disciplinary reasons and in accordance with law, until he has had an opportunity to appear for the qualifying test. So far as the seniority and the promotion of the stenographers in the service are concerned, they would be determined in accordance with the Rules after the result of the qualifying test is announced by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. With these observations and directions, the appeals are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
The perusal of judgment of Apex Court clarifies that test conducted by the RPSC for the post of Stenographer in the State Services is different than Judicial Services. The petitioner has not qualified the test meant for Stenographer in Judicial Services. In absence of it, he was not entitled for confirmation in service. In the case of Babulal Yadav (supra), the Apex Court had considered the delay of 11 years in holding the test for Stenographer. It was found that no test has been conducted by the commission for last 11 years thus appropriate direction was given, as quoted above. After the said judgment, no test was conducted by the RPSC for Stenographer in Judicial Services however an amendment was made on 8th December, 1999 and thereupon has now been given effect. In view of amendment in the rules since 8th November, 1999, the confirmation in service has been given from the date of deletion of proviso to Rule 31. The reason for giving date of confirmation since 8th December, 1999 is coming out from the facts given above. Since the rules were amended on 8th December, 1999 thus prior to amendment in the rules, the requirement to pass the test to be held by the RPSC remain. Since the petitioner has not qualified the test, he was not entitled for confirmation in service prior to the date of amendment in the rules. Infact all the similarly placed employees have been confirmed in service since 8th December, 1999 and so on, depending on the facts of the each Stenographer. Since amendment was given effect from 8th December, 1999, claim for confirmation in service cannot be made from prior date in violation of the rule then existing prior to 8th December, 1999. The proviso to Rule 31 of the Rules of 1986 requires passing of the test to be conducted by the RPSC. Hence, in the light of said condition, the petitioner could not have been regularized or confirmed since 17th January, 1994.
In view of discussion made above, I do not find any illegality in the action of the respondents. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed along with stay application.
[M.N.BHANDARI], J.
FRBOHRA