Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ram Kali And Ors vs State Of Raj And Ors on 24 January, 2011
Author: Mohammad Rafiq
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6746/2009 Ramkali and Others Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Others Date of Order ::: 24.01.2011 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Suresh Kumar, counsel for petitioners Shri Naveen Verma for Shri Dinesh Yadav, Additional Advocate General for respondents #### By the Court:-
Shri Naveen Verma, brief holder of Shri Dinesh Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notices on behalf of respondents, therefore, notices need not be issued.
Counsel for parties jointly submits that controversy raised in instant petition was initially examined and decided by learned Single Bench of this Court in CWP-4119/2009 - Ramjeet Singh and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, and other identical petitions decided on 30.06.2009 and in para 7 & 8 observed as under:-
I have gone through the record of the writ petitions and considered the rival submissions of the parties. In my view, the letter dated 19.01.2009 clearly reveals that the revised scheme is to be implemented instead of old scheme, hence, mere change of the scheme will not result in unemployment and fresh selection. However, the petitioners cannot claim the wages of the intervening period on account of non allotment of the budget.
The action of the respondents envisages the impugned orders of termination of the present petitioners is declared illegal and the petitioners are allowed to continue on their respective posts till the scheme of Lok Talim is implemented. However, they will be entitled for continuity in service but not entitled to fixed remuneration for the intervening period in case the scheme of Lok Talim is implemented.
Against order of learned Single Judge of this Court dated 30.06.2009 DB Civil Special Appeals (517/2010 and other connected appeals) were preferred by the State of Rajasthan which have been dismissed by common judgment dated 01.10.2010 and relief granted by learned Single Judge has been modified and finally observed as under:-
To the recourse proposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, counsel for the appellants has no objection. Hence, the order of the Single Bench is accordingly modified to the extent that it would be open to the appellants to screen the candidates for the purposes of ensuring that they are holding the requisite qualification under the new scheme and adjustment of such incumbent shall be made at other centre in order to ensure the composition as per the new scheme of one man and one woman candidate at one centre is maintained and services of only those candidates be discontinued who are not qualified or it is not possible to accommodate them. However, while doing so, no discrimination be made between the incumbents and rule of last come first go shall be adhered to.
Counsel for petitioners submits that in light of order of learned Single Bench with modification made by Division Bench, present petition may be disposed of.
Counsel for respondents has not controverted this position; however, further submitted that candidature of petitioners will be considered only in terms of modification made by Division Bench of this Court in judgment referred to supra.
It certainly goes without saying that once modification has been made by Division Bench of this Court, Government is under obligation to follow directions of Division Bench referred to supra.
Consequently, this writ petition in light of order passed by learned Single Bench with modification made by Division Bench of this Court, stand disposed of. Petitioners mutatis mutandis are entitled to same relief which has been granted by Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 01.10.2010 (supra). No costs.
(Mohammad Rafiq) J.
//Jaiman//