Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Alkesh Vyas & Ors vs State Of Raj. & Ors on 23 April, 2010
Author: Prakash Tatia
Bench: Prakash Tatia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
:::
JUDGMENT
1 SBCWP NO.8733/2009 RAJU RAM MEGHWAL & ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS 2 SBCWP NO.601/2010 AKHILESH VYAS & ORS Vs. STATE & ORS 3 SBCWP NO.83/2010 MANGI LAL PARIHAR & ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS 4 SBCWP NO.405/2010 KANCHAN GURJAR & ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS 5 SBCWP NO.466/2010 BHARAT SINGH & ORS Vs. STATE & ORS SURESH CHANDER PRAJAPATI & ORS. Vs. 6 SBCWP NO.1468/2010 STATE & ORS 7 SBCWP NO.2827/2010 SMT. SUNITA SHARMA Vs. STATE & ORS 8 SBCWP NO.3104/2010 PAPPU BHUNKAL Vs. STATE & ORS 9 SBCWP NO.3114/2010 VIVEK CHAUHAN Vs. STATE & ORS 10 SBCWP NO.4123/2010 HANUMAN SINGH Vs. STATE & ORS 11 SBCWP NO.3180/2010 BHUPESH PATIDAR & ANR. Vs. STATE & ANR 12 SBCWP NO.3290/2010 SHYAM SINGH & ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS 13 SBCWP NO.3460/2010 RAJ KUMAR & ANR. Vs. STATE & ORS 14 SBCWP NO.3475/2010 RAMESH KUMAR & ORS Vs. STATE & ORS 15 SBCWP NO.3487/2010 SMT. SHALINI JOSHI & ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS 16 SBCWP NO.3531/2010 DUSHYANT KUMAR AMETA Vs. STATE & ORS 17 SBCWP NO.3549/2010 JEEWAN LAL & ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS 18 SBCWP NO.3781/2010 SMT. SUNITA CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE & ORS MASHRA RAM CHOUDHARY & ANR Vs. STATE & 19 SBCWP NO.3812/2010 ORS BHARTI CHOUBISA (SHARMA) & ANR Vs. 20 SBCWP NO.3993/2010 STATE & ORS 21 SBCWP NO.3998/2010 SHIV LAL VISHNOI & ORS Vs. STATE & ORS DEEPAK SINGH TANWAR & ORS. Vs. STATE & 22 SBCWP NO.4020/2010 ORS 23 SBCWP NO.4069/2010 SEEMA DEVI VYAS & ORS Vs. STATE & ORS 24 SBCWP NO.4098/2010 SURESH KUMAR MALI & ORS Vs. STATE & ORS Date of order : 23.4.2010 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J.
S/Sh.Awar Dan Charan, BS Gaur, PS Chundawat, SR Bamaniya, Parikshit Nayak, KL Chauhan, LK Ramdhari, Rajesh Saharan, PR Mehta, NR Choudhary, Ms.Aruna Negi, JR Patel, JS Choudhary, Sanjay Nahar, PS Bhati, Ajitabh Acharya and RD Potalia for the petitioner(s). Mr. RL Jangid, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Rajesh Bhati, Asstt to AAG. for the respondent State.
<><><> The learned counsel for the parties submit that part of Condition No.4 has been stayed by the Division Bench of 2 the Rajasthan High Court Bench, Jaipur, however, that will not affect the fate of these writ petitions and both the counsel submit that similar directions, subject to the effect of the interim order as passed by the Division Bench of the Jaipur Bench of the High Court, may be passed in these matters also.
In view of the above reasons, all these writ petitions are disposed of in the light of the directions issued in the S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 2579/09 Devendra Kumar & ors. v. State and connected matters decided vide judgment dated 15.5.2009 and in the light of the decision given in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4652/09 and connected matters decided on 8.5.2009 with further clarification that the petitioners may satisfy the competent authority, who may be District Education Officer or the Block Elementary Education Officer about the genuineness of the documents as well as continuity of their working in the year 2008- 2009.
The directions given in the above writ petitions are incorporated in these writ petitions which are as under:-
I. During continuation of the work, as detailed out hereinabove, the invocation of the last extension is arbitrary and illegal; and the consequential automatic termination orders of the petitioners are set aside.
II. The RPSC/DPC selected candidates/employees are still not available 3 and next academic sessions is about to start; even urgent temporary appointments under Rule 28 of the Rules of 1971 are not possible due to short span of one month and a half left to start with the process of admission and academic session, therefore, as per the aims and objects of the Scheme, respondents are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for continuation in service till regularly selected candidates from RPSC/persons selected and recommended by the DPC for promotion are made available in the light of the above observations;
III. Even in case of appropriate order of continuation in service till regularly selected candidates from RPSC/DPC selected persons are available, the petitioners are not entitled for wages of the vacations, in other words, when the schools are closed.
IV. In case the regularly selected candidates from RPSC/persons selected and recommended by the DPC for promotion are made available, then the respondents can terminate services of the petitioners after preparation of the seniority list on the State level as per their date of appointment and merit assigned to them, by following the principle of 'last come first go' to the extent of availability of the selected candidates and while doing so, the respondents will keep the interest of the present students and prospective students in view."
It is further made clear that the portion which has been stayed by the Division Bench of this Court shall remain stayed in the light of the order of the Division Bench and that is about the preparation of the seniority list at State level .
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners are also directed to submit the court fee of Rs.25/- for each of 4 the petitioners in case it is a joint writ petition and certified copy of this order may be issued to the petitioners only subject to payment of this Court fee.
[PRAKASH TATIA], J.
s phophaliya 5 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO._______/ Date of order : 23.4.2010 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J.
S/Sh.Awar Dan Charan, BS Gaur, PS Chundawat, SR Bamaniya, Parikshit Nayak, KL Chauhan, LK Ramdhari, Rajesh Saharan, PR Mehta, NR Choudhary, Ms.Aruna Negi, JR Patel, JS Choudhary, Sanjay Nahar, PS Bhati, Ajitabh Acharya and RD Potalia for the petitioner(s).
Mr. RL Jangid, Addl. Advocate General with Mr.Rajesh Bhati , Asstt to AAG, for the respondent State.
<><><> This writ petition is disposed of. [see separate judgment in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8733/2009- Raju Ram Meghwal & Ors. v. State of Raj. & ors.] decided today itself.
By order Court Master.