Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajesh Dwivedi vs State & Ors on 25 July, 2013
Author: Gopal Krishan Vyas
Bench: Gopal Krishan Vyas
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
:ORDER:
Rajesh Dwivedi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others
(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7429/2013)
DATE OF ORDER : July 25th, 2013
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS
____________________________________
Reportable
Mr. Hanuman Singh Choudhary for the petitioner.
Mr. R.L. Jangid, Addl. Advocate General.
Counsel for the petitioners in the writ petitions
mentioned in Schedule-A appended to this
judgment/order :
Mr. A.K. Rajvanshi, Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati,
Dr. Nupur Bhati, Mr. Arjun Purohit, Mr. H.S. Sidhu, Mr.
Sanjay Mathur, Mr. Shambhoo Singh, Mr. V.N. Kalla,
Mr. M.S. Godara, Mr. S. Sarupariya, Mr. Vinod
Purohit, Mr. Sanjeet Purohit, Mr. C.S. Bissa, Mr. V.K.
Bhadu, Mr. P.R. Mehta, Mr. Amit Dave, Mr. Bharat
Devasi, Mr. R.A. Vaishnav, Mr. V.R. Choudhary, Mr.
R.S. Choudhary, Mr. J.R. Chawel, Mr. Deepak Nehra,
Mr. J. Khan, Mr. Shardul Bishnoi, Mr. Manoj Pareek,
Dr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Mr. Bharat Shrimali, Mr.
Rajesh Bishnoi, Mr. Pankaj Awasthi, Mr. Bhanwar
Singh, Mr. Himmat Jagga, Mr. B.R. Godara, Mr.
Rajesh Dadhich, Mr. R.S. Rathore, Ms Shalli Gajja, Mr.
T.S. Rathore, Mr. Jamwant Gurjar, Mr. B.R. Chahar,
2
Mr. Ram Lal Gora, Mr. Inderjeet Yadav, Mr. Kailash
Jangid, Mr. Dhirendra Singh, Mr. J.S. Bhaleriya, Mr.
A.S. Rathore, Ms Pintoo Pareek, Mr. B. Raj Bishnoi,
Mr. J.S. Bhaleria, Mr. B.S. Tanwar, Mr. H.R. Chawla,
Ms Anjali Gopa, Mr. K.C. Choudhary, Mr. M.R.
Choudhary, Mr. Kan Singh Oad, Mr. R.S. Chouhan,
Mr. S.K. Bishnoi, Mr. H.P. Rankawat, Mr. Pawan
Rankawat, Mr. S.K. Verma, Mr. Harish Jangid, Mr.
Rajak Haidar, Mr. Parvej Moyal, Mr. Raman Baloch,
Mr. Vijay Kumar Malviya, Mr. Gopal Acharya, Mr.
Bharat Singh, Mr. Vikram Singh, Mr. Mahaveer Pareek,
Mr. Manoj Bohra, Ms Seema Joshi, Mr. Himmat Jagga,
Mr. B.S. Deora, Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Mr. Rajendra
Katariya, Mr. N.A. Rajpurohit, Mr. K.K. Goyal, Mr. P.S.
Solanki, Mr. O.P. Panwar, Mr. H.S. Bishnoi, Mr. B.P.
Rajpurohit, Mr. Ashvini Swami, Mr. Awar Dan Charan,
Mr. Devakinandan Vyas, Mr. M.A. Khan, Mr. J.D.S.
Bhati, Mr. S.K. Pooniya, Mr. R.R. Ankiya, Mr. Suresh
Prajapat, Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, Mr. Rajendra Soni.
BY THE COURT :
In this writ petition and the writ petitions enumerated in the Schedule-A appended to this judgment, the petitioners are claiming benefit of bonus marks of experience possessed by him for appointment on the post of "Education Assistant"
through direct recruitment as per the Rajasthan Education Assistant Service Rules 2013 which is going to be made by the respondent State vide advertisement dated 30.05.2013 issued by the 3 Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner in various districts of Rajasthan. Hence, all the writ petitions mentioned in Schedule-A as well as instant writ petition are being decided by this common judgment.
Brief facts of the case are that the State Government in exercise of power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India made rules for making recruitment to the posts of "Education Assistant" known as Rajasthan Education Assistant Service Rules 2013.
In Part III of the Rules of 2013, method of recruitment is provided. In the Schedule appended to the Rules of 2013 the post of Education Assistant is enumerated which is to be filled in 100% by direct recruitment and minimum qualification and experience for direct recruitment is mentioned in column No.4.
The Schedule appended to the Rules of 2013 is as follows :4
S. Name of Method of Minimum Committee to recommend Remark No. the Post recruitment qualification for direct recruitment to with and the post percentage experience for direct recruitment 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 Education 100% by Secondary 1. District Education Assistant direct from Board of Officer (Elementary recruitment Secondary Education) Education, 2. Additional District Rajasthan or Education Officer its equivalent (Secondary Education)
3. Nominee of Collector not below the rank of Tehsildar Under Rule 16 of the Rules of 2013 academic and technical qualification and experience is provided which reads as under :
"16. Academic and technical qualifications and experience.-
A candidate for direct recruitment to the post enumerated in the Schedule shall possess,-
(i) the qualifications and
experience given in column 4 of
the Schedule; and
(ii) working knowledge of Hindi written in Devnagri script and knowledge of Rajasthani culture." 5 In the writ petition, it is submitted that the petitioner is possessing Secondary qualification from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer, therefore, as per rules he is entitled to be considered for appointment. While inviting attention of the Court towards Rule 16(1) of the Rules of 2013, it is pleaded that qualification and experience given in column No.4 of the Schedule is required to be possessed by the candidate for recruitment on the post of Education Assistant. Admittedly, no experience is provided in column No.4 of the Schedule appended to the Rules of 2013; but, under Rule 25, there is provision for scrutiny of applications, in which, procedure is provided to calculate bonus marks for the experience for the service exceeding one year acquired by the candidate other than those engaged through placement agencies working in any government school/ government Educational Projects viz., Lok Jumbish Pariyojana/Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan/ District Primary Education Programme/ Rajiv Gandhi 6 Pathshala/Shiksha Karmi Board and Madarsa listed under the Madarsa Board for the purpose of preparing merit.
The first contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that although no experience is provided in the Schedule appended to the Rules of 2013 for recruitment on the posts of Education Assistant but the State Government is providing marks for experience to a class of persons, therefore, denial of bonus marks of experience to the petitioner who is possessing experience under the Guest Faculty and other than the post mentioned in Rule 25 is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, it is submitted that if the State Government is desirous of providing bonus marks, then, it cannot be restricted for only those candidates which are enumerated under Rule 25 of the Rules. It should be granted to all the similarly situated persons working in different schemes of the Government and it cannot be restricted only for those persons who are serving in 7 the schemes at present.
According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the bonus marks for experience is required to be given to all the candidates having experience other than the schemes mentioned in Rule 25 of the Rules of 2013 but the State Government is providing marks for experience only to those in service candidates as mentioned in Rule 25. As per the facts, the petitioner is possessing Secondary qualification along with experience under the 'Guest Faculty' which is not under the purview of any of the schemes but the petitioner is having experience of teaching, therefore, the benefit of bonus marks for experience is extended to persons working as Lok Jumbish Personnel, Para Teachers, Shiksha Karmi, Madarsa Para Teacher and Vidyarthi Mitra may be allowed to all other employees including the petitioner who acquired experience earlier in different other schemes of the State. According to the petitioner, no discrimination can be made by the State Government for granting 10 bonus 8 marks of experience of each year up to 30 marks, therefore, if the State Government is under obligation to grant benefit of bonus marks to all the candidates for the experience of three years as per Rule 25 of the Rules of 2013.
In this writ petition, while issuing notice following query was made from the State vide order dated 02.07.2013 :
"Issue notice, returnable on 22.07.2013. Let respondents No.1 and 2 be put to notice with direction to explain before this Court how bonus marks can be given for adjustment by way of appointment on the post of Education Assistant when experience is not the qualification prescribed for the post in the rules. So also, the State Government shall explain before the Court how bonus marks can be prescribed for appointment on the posts of Education Assistant to those persons who were appointed do hors the rules, that too, on the post which is not even enumerated in any of the Service rules in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case (supra)."
9Learned Addl. Advocate General Mr. R.L. Jangid while filing reply and furnishing answer to the above query made by this Court submits that the Directorate, Department of Elementary Education, Bikaner issued order dated 09.08.2003 to all the Education Officers (Elementary) and Block Elementary Education Officers to engage eligible and qualified persons under the 'guest faculty' scheme. The said scheme was introduced during the academic session 2003-2004 which contained necessary terms and conditions according to which the persons who are engaged under the 'guest faculty' scheme were paid Rs.25 per period not exceeding Rs.75/- per day as honorarium. The said scheme started with effect from 01.08.2003 and came to an end on 30.04.2004. The period for which the petitioner worked is not more than six months, therefore, he is not entitled for any bonus marks.
While inviting attention of this Court towards the scheme for appointment of Vidyarthi Mitra, it is 10 submitted by the learned Addl. Advocate General that the scheme of engaging Vidyarthi Mitra is not parallel to the scheme of 'guest faculty'. Vidyarthi Mitra were appointed under different scheme of the State Government at relevant time, therefore, the 'guest faculty' scheme cannot be equated with the Vidyarthi Mitra scheme because in the Vidyarthi Mitra scheme/project the persons are required to do regular teaching work besides other work and appointment is to be made on contract basis on execution of the contract agreement, therefore, the persons who served under the 'guest faculty' scheme are not entitled for any bonus marks. The bonus marks is to be given as per Rule 25 of the Rules.
Learned Addl. Advocate General vehemently argued that the State Government framed the Rajasthan Education Assistant Service Rules 2013 and in pursuance of that the Directorate (Elementary Education) issued an advertisement dated 30.05.2013 whereby applications are invited for recruitment on 11 the post of Education Assistant in all the districts of the State. The State Government issued an order on 30.05.2013 to all the Officers of the Education Department in which names of government schools and government projects are mentioned, it is further clarified that all the Vidyarthi Mitra working at relevant time in government schools are entitled for bonus marks, therefore, it has been specifically provided under Rule 25 of the Rules of 2013 that persons working in government schools should be given weightage while determining their experience as per Rule 25 because in addition to the duty of teaching, such Vidyarthi Mitra and other candidates are required to discharge various other duties assigned to them from time to time by the State Government viz., (i) स ल नह ज न व ल बच सव रन ; (ii) उनह स ल म पवश लन हत पररत रन ; (iii) ड प आउटस " टक ग रन ; (iv) ममड ड ममल व)वस* + सभ लन ; (v) अनश सन, सवच.त एव सहश0क2 गततववध6) स लन इत) द: म रन ।
While inviting attention towards above facts, it is 12 submitted that due to aforesaid facts and looking to the working of Vidyarthi Mitra and other employees working in the schemes mentioned in Rule 25 of the Rules of 2013 bonus marks have been provided, therefore, the ground raised by the petitioner equating the work of Vidyarthi Mitra with those persons working under the 'guest faculty' scheme is totally untenable.
According to the respondents, the Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner clearly mentioned in Annex.-6 that experience certificate will be issued to the eligible and deserving persons for working upto 16.05.2013, therefore, such provision cannot be termed as illegal and unconstitutional because the State Government, in fact, wants to utilise experience of those employees who were engaged and got experience in the government schools and government projects mentioned in Rule 25 of the Rules, therefore, not only the State Government granted bonus marks but also granted relaxation in age.
13
Learned Addl. Advocate General vehemently argued that although in column No.4 of the Schedule appended to the Rules of 2013 experience is not mentioned but persons mentioned in Rule 25 of the Rules of 2013 under the provision of scrutiny of applications were held entitled for bonus marks of experience for those who are working or serving in the government schools or government projects, therefore, it cannot be said that the State action is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The rules have been formulated to fill up the posts of Education Assistant for better education in the government schools. Learned Addl. Advocate General submits that bonus marks have been provided under Rule 25 of the Rules so as to render the services to the students in government schools, therefore, weightage of marks given for experience is not unconstitutional; more so, it has been done by the welfare State within the four corners of its jurisdiction and power.
14
While inviting attention towards the fact that in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, it is further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court permitted the State Government to run schemes and projects for imparting education because education is sovereign function of the State, therefore, as per the principles laid down in Uma Devi's case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not precluded the State Government from making temporary, daily-wage and contract appointments and emphasis is laid down in Uma Devi's case, therefore, the petitioner cannot raise any voice with regard to grant of bonus marks allowed by the State Government for employees working in the schemes and projects of the Education Department and educational institutions as per Rule 25 of the Rules of 2013.
For the question for providing bonus marks it is submitted that co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a common judgment dated 02.09.2008 rendered in the 15 case of Jaipal Bishnoi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6109/2008, decided along with 49 writ petitions, considered this aspect of the matter whether proviso (v) of Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008 is inconsistent to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India for creating two classes among the persons working in the educational system of the State. In the said judgment, the co-ordinate Bench considered the matter at length and held that there will be no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, therefore, in the instant matter, the classification as pointed out is reasonable for the reasons given above and there is nothing to show that relaxation in maximum age limit granted to the persons serving with the educational projects such as Rajiv Gandhi Swarna Jayanti Pathshala, Shiksha Karmi Project, Lok Jumbish Project, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan and District Primary Education Programme is without reason and held that there is no inequility. 16
The crux of argument of learned counsel for the respondent is that appointment in any of the project or scheme is not de hors the rules, therefore, it cannot be said that the State Government is acting contrary to the provisions of the Constitution. The grant of bonus marks is specifically provided under Rule 25 of the Rules of 2013, therefore, the action of the State Government for providing bonus marks for experience up to three years' for government schemes and projects is perfectly legal that cannot be termed as unconstitutional.
Learned Addl. Advocate General vehemently argued that services of Education Assistants will be utilized in the government schools for discharging function other than the work of teaching, therefore, the State Government is having jurisdiction to provide marks for experience gained by the employees working in government schemes and projects of the Education Department, in which, there is no illegality. In support of his argument, learned Addl. Advocate 17 General invited attention of this Court towards two judgments of the Supreme Court, reported in (2003) 2 SCC 632, P.U. Joshi & Others Vs. Accountant General, Ahmedabad & Others; and, AIR 2011 SC 2956, Chandigarh Administration through the Director, Public Instructions (Colleges), Chandigarh Vs. Usha Kheterpal Waie & Others Lastly, it is argued that bare reading of Rule 25 pertaining to scrutiny of applications speaks that the committee referred to in column No.5 of the Schedule is required to scrutinize the applications and merit is to be prepared on the basis of such weightage as may be specified by the State Government having regard to experience, exceeding one year acquired by persons other than those engaged through placement agency, working in any Government school/Government Educational Projects viz., Lok Jumbish Pariyojana/Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan/District Primary Education Programme/Rajiv Gandhi Pathshala/Shiksha Karmi Board and Madarsa listed under the Madarsa 18 Board. Therefore, the action of the respondent State is in consonance with the provisions of the Constitution and as such no case is made out for interference, therefore, the writ petition may be dismissed.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, first of all, I deem it appropriate to observe that in the year 2009 the Parliament of the country enacted the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. In the said Act, qualification of the post of teacher Grade-III is enumerated and specifically to maintain educational standards certain special qualification known as TET is provided for the post of Teacher Grade-III; meaning thereby, the Central Government while performing its sovereign duty and to maintain educational standard for the children enacted the Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and State Government recruited teachers while amending the service rules on the posts of Teacher Grade-III (Level-I and Level-II). 19
It is admitted position that from last many years, recruitment on the posts of Teacher Grade-III are not made as per the Rules, therefore, after clubbing thousands of vacancies of the post of Teacher Grade- III, recruitment process was commenced and completed in the year 2012 and 2013. During those years when no recruitment took place on the posts of Teacher Grade-III as per rules, then, the State Government promulgated certain schemes and engaged Vidyarthi Mitra, para-teachers, etc. but the fact remains that said posts were not enumerated in any of the service rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, however, the services of Vidyarthi Mitra, para teachers and other posts were utilized after making appointment on fix term or on contract basis for the purpose of imparting education in the village area and urban area. The appointment so made were de hors the rules.
It is also worthwhile to observe that for last five years the whole education system of the State mostly 20 remained in the hands of Vidyarthi Mitra, para teachers, Prerak and Shiksha Karmi because no recruitment on the posts of Teacher Grade-III even on temporary basis were made by the State Government; meaning thereby, for last more than five years the State Government utilized the services of these employees in the primary and middle schools appointed in the projects and schemes against regular vacancies although rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution were in force. The above action of the State Government clearly speaks that due to so called schemes the respondent State completely destroyed the elementary and middle education system and, later on, when the Act of 2009 was enacted by the Central Government known as the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, issued process of selection in the year 2011 while incorporating the qualification prescribed by the NCTE for the posts of Teacher Grade-III (Level I and Level II); and, now, for providing special benefit of 21 absorption of those employees who were appointed on contractual fix term basis on the posts of para teachers, Vidyarthi Mitra, Shiksha Karmis, Urdu teachers and employees of Lok Jumbish etc. etc. the Rules of 2013 have been framed but in view of the judgment rendered by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case (supra) the State Government cannot provide regularization to those persons under the garb of direct recruitment. The State Government promulgated the Rules of 2013 in which not only age relaxation has been granted to the Vidyarthi Mitra and para teachers and others but also provided 10 bonus marks for each year of experience up to three years; meaning thereby, for recruitment on the post of Education Assistant if an employee working in the schemes or projects of the Government on various posts (hint:-para teachers, Shiksha Karmis Urdu teachers, Vidyarthi Mitra and employees of Lok Jumbish etc. etc.) will get bonus marks but such bonus marks are not provided for 22 experience gained by the employees working in other schemes or projects of the Education Department of the State.
I have perused the Schedule appended to the Rules of 2013, in which, there is column No.4 in which minimum qualification and experience for direct recruitment on the post of Education Assistant is provided. In the said column 4, no qualification of experience is provided but only academic qualification which is Secondary from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer or its equivalent is provided. Similarly, I have perused Rule 16 of the said Rules in which it is categorically provided that candidate should possess the qualification and experience given in column No.4 of the Schedule; meaning thereby, under Rule 16 which is mandatory. In view of above, neither in column No.4 of the Schedule and under Rule 16 although word "experience" is included as eligibility/qualification for the post but as per column No.4 of the Schedule. In 23 Rule 25 there is procedure prescribed for scrutiny of applications which provides that the Committee on the basis of such weightage as may be specified by the State Government for the marks obtained in the minimum qualification examination mentioned in the Schedule and such marks as may be specified by the State Government having regard to experience, exceeding one year acquired by persons other than those engaged through placement agency, working in any Government school/Government Educational Projects viz., Lok Jumbish Pariyojana/Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan/District Primary Education Programme/Rajiv Gandhi Pathshala/Shiksha Karmi Board and Madarsa listed under the Madarsa Board will prepare merit.
In Umadevi's case (supra), the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that no regularisation can be made of those employees who were appointed de hors the rules by way of back-door entry. The Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court the Constitution Bench made following 24 adjudication in Uma Devi's case :
"46. Learned Senior Counsel for some of the respondents argued that on the basis of the doctrine of legitimate expectation, the employees, especially of the Commercial Taxes Department, should be directed to be regularized since the decisions in Dharwad (supra), Piara Singh (supra), Jacob, and Gujarat Agricultural University and the like, have given rise to an expectation in them that their services would also be regularized. The doctrine can be invoked if the decisions of the Administrative Authority affect the person by depriving him of some benefit or advantage which either (i) he had in the past been permitted by the decision-maker to enjoy and which he can legitimately expect to be permitted to continue to do until there have been communicated to him some rational grounds for withdrawing it on which he has been given an opportunity to comment; or
(ii) he has received assurance from the decision-maker that they will not be withdrawn without giving him first an opportunity of advancing reasons for contending that they should not be withdrawn {See Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions V. Minister for the Civil Service (1985 Appeal Cases 374), National Buildings Construction Corpn. Vs. S. Raghunathan, (1998 (7) SCC 66) and Dr. Chanchal Goyal Vs. State of Rajasthan (2003 (3) SCC 485). There is no case that any assurance was given by the Government or the 25 concerned department while making the appointment on daily wages that the status conferred on him will not be withdrawn until some rational reason comes into existence for withdrawing it. The very engagement was against the constitutional scheme. Though, the Commissioner of the Commercial Taxes Department sought to get the appointments made permanent, there is no case that at the time of appointment any promise was held out. No such promise could also have been held out in view of the circulars and directives issued by the Government after the Dharwad decision. Though, there is a case that the State had made regularizations in the past of similarly situated employees, the fact remains that such regularizations were done only pursuant to judicial directions, either of the Administrative Tribunal or of the High Court and in some case by this Court. Moreover, the invocation of the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot enable the employees to claim that they must be made permanent or they must be regularized in the service though they had not been selected in terms of the rules for appointment. The fact that in certain cases the court had directed regularization of the employees involved in those cases cannot be made use of to found a claim based on legitimate expectation. The argument if accepted would also run counter to the constitutional mandate. The argument in that behalf has therefore to be rejected.
47. When a person enters a 26 temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognized by the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure for selection and in concerned cases, in consultation with the Public Service Commission.
Therefore, the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary, contractual or casual employees. It cannot also be held that the State has held out any promise while engaging these persons either to continue them where they are or to make them permanent. The State cannot constitutionally make such a promise. It is also obvious that the theory cannot be invoked to seek a positive relief of being made permanent in the post.
48. It was then contended that the rights of the employees thus appointed, under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, are violated. It is stated that the State has treated the employees unfairly by employing them on less than minimum wages and extracting work from them for a pretty long period in comparison with those directly recruited who are getting more wages or salaries for doing similar work. The employees 27 before us were engaged on daily wages in the concerned department on a wage that was made known to them. There is no case that the wage agreed upon was not being paid.
Those who are working on daily wages formed a class by themselves, they cannot claim that they are discriminated as against those who have been regularly recruited on the basis of the relevant rules. No right can be founded on an employment on daily wages to claim that such employee should be treated on a par with a regularly recruited candidate, and made permanent in employment, even assuming that the principle could be invoked for claiming equal wages for equal work. There is no fundamental right in those who have been employed on daily wages or temporarily or on contractual basis, to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. As has been held by this Court, they cannot be said to be holders of a post, since, a regular appointment could be made only by making appointments consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The right to be treated equally with the other employees employed on daily wages, cannot be extended to a claim for equal treatment with those who were regularly employed. That would be treating unequals as equals. It cannot also be relied on to claim a right to be absorbed in service even though they have never been selected in terms of the relevant recruitment rules. The arguments based on Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution are therefore 28 overruled.
49. It is contended that the State action in not regularizing the employees was not fair within the framework of the rule of law. The rule of law compels the State to make appointments as envisaged by the Constitution and in the manner we have indicated earlier. In most of these cases, no doubt, the employees had worked for some length of time but this has also been brought about by the pendency of proceedings in Tribunals and courts initiated at the instance of the employees. Moreover, accepting an argument of this nature would mean that the State would be permitted to perpetuate an illegality in the matter of public employment and that would be a negation of the constitutional scheme adopted by us, the people of India. It is therefore not possible to accept the argument that there must be a direction to make permanent all the persons employed on daily wages. When the court is approached for relief by way of a writ, the court has necessarily to ask itself whether the person before it had any legal right to be enforced. Considered in the light of the very clear constitutional scheme, it cannot be said that the employees have been able to establish a legal right to be made permanent even though they have never been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
50. It is argued that in a country like India where there is so much poverty 29 and unemployment and there is no equality of bargaining power, the action of the State in not making the employees permanent, would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. But the very argument indicates that there are so many waiting for employment and an equal opportunity for competing for employment and it is in that context that the Constitution as one of its basic features, has included Articles 14, 16 and 309 so as to ensure that public employment is given only in a fair and equitable manner by giving all those who are qualified, an opportunity to seek employment. In the guise of upholding rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, a set of persons cannot be preferred over a vast majority of people waiting for an opportunity to compete for State employment. The acceptance of the argument on behalf of the respondents would really negate the rights of the others conferred by Article 21 of the Constitution, assuming that we are in a position to hold that the right to employment is also a right coming within the purview of Article 21 of the Constitution. The argument that Article 23 of the Constitution is breached because the employment on daily wages amounts to forced labour, cannot be accepted. After all, the employees accepted the employment at their own volition and with eyes open as to the nature of their employment. The Governments also revised the minimum wages payable from time to time in the light of all 30 relevant circumstances. It also appears to us that importing of these theories to defeat the basic requirement of public employment would defeat the constitutional scheme and the constitutional goal of equality.
51. The argument that the right to life protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India would include the right to employment cannot also be accepted at this juncture. The law is dynamic and our Constitution is a living document. May be at some future point of time, the right to employment can also be brought in under the concept of right to life or even included as a fundamental right. The new statute is perhaps a beginning. As things now stand, the acceptance of such a plea at the instance of the employees before us would lead to the consequence of depriving a large number of other aspirants of an opportunity to compete for the post or employment. Their right to employment, if it is a part of right to life, would stand denuded by the preferring of those who have got in casually or those who have come through the back door. The obligation cast on the State under Article 39(a) of the Constitution of India is to ensure that all citizens equally have the right to adequate means of livelihood. It will be more consistent with that policy if the courts recognize that an appointment to a post in government service or in the service of its instrumentalities, can only be by way of a proper selection in the manner recognized by 31 the relevant legislation in the context of the relevant provisions of the Constitution. In the name of individualizing justice, it is also not possible to shut our eyes to the constitutional scheme and the right of the numerous as against the few who are before the court. The Directive Principles of State Policy have also to be reconciled with the rights available to the citizen under Part III of the Constitution and the obligation of the State to one and all and not to a particular group of citizens. We, therefore, overrule the argument based on Article 21 of the Constitution.
52. Normally, what is sought for by such temporary employees when they approach the court, is the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the employer, the State or its instrumentalities, to absorb them in permanent service or to allow them to continue. In this context, the question arises whether a mandamus could be issued in favour of such persons. At this juncture, it will be proper to refer to the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur Vs. The Governing Body of the Nalanda College [(1962) Supp. 2 SCR 144]. That case arose out of a refusal to promote the writ petitioner therein as the Principal of a college. This Court held that in order that a mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that the statute imposes a legal duty on the authority and the aggrieved party had a legal right under the statute or rule 32 to enforce it. This classical position continues and a mandamus could not be issued in favour of the employees directing the government to make them permanent since the employees cannot show that they have an enforceable legal right to be permanently absorbed or that the State has a legal duty to make them permanent.
53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa (supra), R.N. Nanjundappa (supra), and B.N. Nagarajan (supra), and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be 33 filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.
54. It is also clarified that those decisions which run counter to the principle settled in this decision, or in which directions running counter to what we have held herein, will stand denuded of their status as precedents.
55. In cases relating to service in the commercial taxes department, the High Court has directed that those engaged on daily wages, be paid wages equal to the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in government service, with effect from the dates from which they were respectively appointed. The objection taken was to the direction for payment from the dates of engagement. We find that the High Court had clearly gone wrong in directing that these employees be paid salary equal to the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in government service, with effect 34 from the dates from which they were respectively engaged or appointed. It was not open to the High Court to impose such an obligation on the State when the very question before the High Court in the case was whether these employees were entitled to have equal pay for equal work so called and were entitled to any other benefit. They had also been engaged in the teeth of directions not to do so. We are, therefore, of the view that, at best, the Division Bench of the High Court should have directed that wages equal to the salary that are being paid to regular employees be paid to these daily wage employees with effect from the date of its judgment.
Hence, that part of the direction of the Division Bench is modified and it is directed that these daily wage earners be paid wages equal to the salary at the lowest grade of employees of their cadre in the Commercial Taxes Department in government service, from the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court. Since, they are only daily wage earners, there would be no question of other allowances being paid to them. In view of our conclusion, that Courts are not expected to issue directions for making such persons permanent in service, we set aside that part of the direction of the High Court directing the 35 Government to consider their cases for regularization. We also notice that the High Court has not adverted to the aspect as to whether it was regularization or it was giving permanency that was being directed by the High Court. In such a situation, the direction in that regard will stand deleted and the appeals filed by the State would stand allowed to that extent. If sanctioned posts are vacant (they are said to be vacant) the State will take immediate steps for filling those posts by a regular process of selection. But when regular recruitment is undertaken, the respondents in C.A. No. 3595- 3612 and those in the Commercial Taxes Department similarly situated, will be allowed to compete, waiving the age restriction imposed for the recruitment and giving some weightage for their having been engaged for work in the Department for a significant period of time. That would be the extent of the exercise of power by this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution to do justice to them." Upon perusal of the above adjudication, it is abundantly clear that as per the verdict of the Constitution Bench temporary employment or engagement of employee on contractual or casual 36 basis is not based upon proper selection as recognized by the relevant rules or procedure. Here, in this case, the State Government with open eyes completely ignored the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India for recruitment of Teacher Grade- III and proceeded to utilize the services of the employees appointed on the posts which are not even enumerated in any service rules but created by the schemes framed by the Central and State Governments. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (supra) clearly held that regularization of such type of appointments is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India because rule of law is required to prevail.
The Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Deepak Kumar Suthar & Another Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others, reported in 1999 (2) RLR 692, held that any kind of weightage/advantage in public employment in any State service is not permissible on the ground of place of birth or residence and the 37 clause in the circular providing for bonus marks on the ground of being resident of the same district for which the posts are advertised or on the ground of being resident of urban area or rural area is void ab initio. Here, in this case, it is required to be observed that for appointment of para teachers and other employees no particular qualification is prescribed nor any procedure is laid down for recruitment but they were provided appointment if they are belonging to particular area.
In my opinion, the judgment rendered by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court is required to be followed by the State Government in its true spirit but, in this case, a new method has been adopted by the State Government to undo the the judgment of Umadevi's case (supra) and, for the said purpose, without incorporating "experience" in the qualification in the Schedule appended to the Rules of 2013, under the provisions for "scrutiny of applications" in Rule 25, the State Government 38 prescribed bonus marks at the time of scrutiny of applications which is special benefit of regularisation under the garb and nomenclature of direct recruitment.
Upon perusal of Part III of the Rules of 2013, it emerges that the State Government is going to provide appointment without holding any written test only on the basis of marks obtained in the Secondary examination and while giving bonus marks for experience. But, it is very strange that under Rule 16 of the Rules of 2013, a provision has been made with regard to academic and technical qualification and experience in which it is specifically provided that a candidate for direct recruitment on the post enumerated in the Schedule shall possess the qualification and experience mentioned in column No.4 of the Schedule. Admittedly, "experience" word is not in existence in column No.4 of the Schedule. Therefore, Procedure prescribed for grant of bonus marks in Rule 25 for experience becomes irrelevant. 39 The said provision cannot be made applicable for the purpose of assessing the suitability of the candidate.
The above attempt made by the State Government is to undo the verdict given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Umadevi's case (supra) and is contrary to law. In the case of Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand & Others, 2008 (11) JT 467, Hon'ble Supreme Court held in para 57 of the judgment that by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India the judgment of the Constitution Bench in the case of the Secretary, State of Karnataka & Another Vs. Umadevi & Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 is binding on all the Courts including the Government till the same is overruled by a larger Bench. The ratio of the Constitution Bench judgment has been followed by different two-Judges Benches for declining to entertain the claim of regularization of service made by ad hoc/temporary/daily wage/casual employees or for reversing the orders of the High Court granting relief to such employees. Para 57 of 40 the judgment reads as under :
"57. By virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution, the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (supra) is binding on all the courts including this Court till the same is overruled by a larger Bench. The ratio of the Constitution Bench judgment has been followed by different two-Judges Benches for declining to entertain the claim of regularization of service made by ad hoc/temporary/ daily wage/casual employees or for reversing the orders of the High Court granting relief to such employees - Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen [JT 2006 (10) SC 216; 2007 (1) SCC 408], Gangadhar Pillai v. Siemens Ltd. [JT 2006 (10) SC 65; 2007 (1) SCC 533], Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. L.V. Subramanyeswara [JT 2007 (6) SC 594; 2007 (5) SCC 326], Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Dan Bahadur Singh [JT 2007 (6) SC 320;
2007 (6) SCC 207]. However, in U.P. SEB v. Pooran Chand Pandey (supra) on which reliance has been placed by Shri Gupta, a two-Judges Bench has attempted to dilute the Constitution Bench judgment by suggesting that the said decision cannot be applied to a case where regularization has been sought for in pursuance of Article 14 of the Constitution and that the same is in conflict with the judgment of the seven- Judges Bench in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [1978 (1) SCC 248]" 41
In view of the above, the contention of learned Addl. Advocate General that bonus marks have been provided to utilize the experience of the employees engaged in various schemes is not acceptable in law because the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be applied for violating the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umadevi's case (supra). It is true that the State Government has framed rules for direct recruitment but provisions for direct recruitment clearly speak that it is an attempt to undo the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umadevi's case (supra).
In the opinion of this Court, upon perusal of Rule 16 of the Rules of 2013, it is abundantly clear that a candidate for appointment on the post of Education Assistant is required to possess qualification and experience as provided in column No.4 of the Schedule but, in the Schedule, in column No.4 only academic qualification is provided which is Secondary examination from the Board of Secondary Education, 42 Rajasthan, Ajmer or its equivalent. There is no mention of any kind of experience in column No.4 of the Schedule appended to the Rules of 2013.
Therefore, it can be said that in the garb of these rules the State Government is violating the adjudication made by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umadevi's case (supra) and, for that purpose, a new method is adopted for providing bonus marks for experience under Rule 25 in which, in fact, provision for scrutiny of the applications so as to regularize the services of the employees to whom bonus marks are given.
Upon above discussion it is abundantly clear that once the experience is not provided in the Schedule for direct recruitment on the post, then, it cannot be taken into account for the purpose of awarding marks for adjudging the suitability of the candidate.
It is true that for the purpose of adjudging the validity of the rules the matter is required to be decided by the Division Bench but, here, in this case, 43 after perusal of column No.4 of the Schedule appended to the Rules of 2013 and Rule 16 of the Rules, I am of the opinion that Rule 25 under which scrutiny of applications is to be made, where, bonus marks are prescribed becomes redundant because in Rule 25 it is observed that merit shall be prepared by the committee on the basis of such weightage as may be specified by the State Government for the marks obtained in the minimum qualification examination mentioned in the Schedule and such marks as may be specified by the State Government having regard to experience, exceeding one year acquired by persons other than those engaged through placement agency, working in any Government school/ Government Educational Projects viz., Lok Jumbish Pariyojana/Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan/District Primary Education Programme/Rajiv Gandhi Pathshala/ Shiksha Karmi Board and Madarsa listed under the Madarsa Board. Therefore, it is only the procedure prescribed under Rule 25 and not the qualification.44
When "experience" is not enumerated in column 4 of the Schedule appended to the Rules of 2013, then, the procedure for preparing merit as per Rule 25 becomes irrelevant because it cannot run beyond Rule 16 of the Rules of 2013.
With regard to the judgments cited by learned counsel for the respondents there is no doubt that appointing authority or the State Government can prescribe any qualification for the post but, at the same time, the State Government cannot ignore the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court given in Uma Devi's case (supra).
In some of the writ petitions age relaxation has been claimed and orders have been passed to accept off-line applications, therefore, it is expected from the State Government that question of age relaxation to other than the category mentioned in Rule 15 of the Rules in different schemes will be considered under the power to relax the rules provided under Rule 41 of the Rules while accepting the off-line applications.45
In view of above, this writ petition along with all the writ petitions mentioned in Schedule-A appended to this judgment are hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to make selection as per the qualification mentioned in column 4 of the Schedule appended to the Rules of 2013 which is Secondary examination from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer or its equivalent while following the mandate of Rule 16 of the Rules of 2013 and shall not grant any bonus marks for experience which is not provided in column 4 of the Schedule appended to the Rules of 2013 as per Rule 16 of the Rules and merit list may be prepared strictly on the basis of marks obtained in the Secondary examination only.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Gopal Krishan Vyas) J.
Ojha, a.46
SCHEDULE A
-------------------
(Appended to Judgment dated 25-07-2013 passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7429/2013,Rajesh Dwivedi v/s State of Rajasthan & Others).
1 C.W. 7038/2013 KAMLESH KUMAR PURBIA
(STAY) STATE OF RAJ. & ORS
2 C.W. 7040/2013 RAVI JHALA
(STAY) STATE OF RAJ. & ORS
3 C.W. 7181/2013 SUNIL KUMAR CHHIPA
STATE & ORS.
4 C.W. 7289/2013 PAWAN KUMAR GAUR &
ORS
STATE & ORS.
5 C.W. 7318/2013 HANUMAN RAM & ORS
(STAY) STATE & ORS.
6 C.W. 7321/2013 ANITA KANWAR & ANR
(STAY) STATE & ANR.
7 C.W. 7337/2013 SUKHDEV & ANR.
47
(STAY) STATE & ORS.
8 C.W. 7378/2013 SUSHILA KUMARI
(STAY) STATE & ORS.
9 C.W. 7379/2013 HARI KISHAN NANDAN &
ANR
(STAY) STATE & ORS.
10 C.W. 7384/2013 NIRAJ SINGH RAJPUT &
ANR.
(STAY) STATE & ORS.
11 C.W. 7386/2013 BISHAN SINGH & ANR
(STAY) STATE & ORS.
12 C.W. 7400/2013 MAHENDRA SINGH JHALA (STAY) STATE & ORS.
13 C.W. 7412/2013 RUPAL MANDOT
(STAY) STATE & ANR.
14 C.W. 7435/2013 DEVI SINGH & ORS
(STAY) STATE & ORS.
48
15 C.W. 7462/2013 NORANG RAM & ORS
STATE & ORS.
16 C.W. 7495/2013 BAL RAM KASWAN & ORS
(STAY) STATE & ORS
17 C.W. 7499/2013 VIKRAM KUMAR BHIL &
ORS
(STAY) STATE & ORS.
18 C.W. 7602/2013 KELU KANWAR & ORS
(STAY) STATE & ORS.
19 C.W. 7607/2013 SAWAI DAN
(STAY) STATE & ORS.
20 C.W. 7656/2013 GANESH LAL BALAI
(STAY) STAT E & ORS
21 C.W. 7673/2013 GAJENDRA KUMAR BUNKAR & ORS (STAY) STAT E & ORS 22 C.W. 7676/2013 CHETAN SINGH RATHORE & ORS (STAY) STAT E & ORS 49 23 C.W. 7802/2013 HANUMAN RAM GODARA (STAY) STATE & ORS 24 C.W. 7846/2013 RAMESH CHAND & ORS (STAY) STATE & ORS 25 C.W. 7850/2013 SHER MOHMMAD & ORS.
STATE & ORS.
26 C.W. 7852/2013 BHERARAM & ORS
(STAY) STATE & ORS.
27 C.W. 7914/2013 TOGA RAM & ORS.
(STAY) STATE & ORS.
28 C.W. 7923/2013 PRASMAL & ORS.
(STAY) STATE & ORS.
29 C.W. 7953/2013 MANOJ SHARMA & ORS
(STAY) STATE & ORS.
50
30 C.W. 7960/2013 RAJESH KUMAR & ORS.
(STAY) STATE & ORS.
31 C.W. 7961/2013 JALA RAM BISHNOI & ORS (STAY) STATE & ORS.
32 C.W. 7967/2013 DEVILAL JAT & ORS.
(STAY) STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. 33 C.W. 7975/2013 MANJU DEVI (STAY) STATE & ORS.
34 C.W. 7984/2013 MEERA DEVI & ORS.
(STAY) STATE OF RAJASTHAN &
ORS.
35 C.W. 7988/2013 DINESH KUMAR NAI &
ORS.
(STAY) STATE OF RAJASTHAN &
ORS.
36 C.W. 7993/2013 INDU KANWAR & ORS.
(STAY) STATE & ORS.
51
37 C.W. 7994/2013 NEETU SINGH RAJPUROHIT STATE & ORS 38 C.W. 8000/2013 NEPAL SINGH & ORS (STAY) STATE & ORS.
39 C.W. 8002/2013 SUSHILA DEVI & ANR.
(STAY) STATE & ORS. 40 C.W. 8005/2013 SOHAN LAL & ORS (STAY) STATE & ORS 41 C.W. 8019/2013 BHAGIRATH PRASAD NAI & ORS (STAY) STATE & ORS.
42 C.W. 8020/2013 AMAR LAL & ORS.
(STAY) STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. 43 C.W. 8024/2013 BHAGWAN LAL & ORS (STAY) STATE & ORS
44 C.W. 8036/2013 MANJU DEVI & ORS.
(STAY) STATE OF RAJASTHAN &
ORS.
52
45 C.W. 8038/2013 BHAGIRATH RAM & ORS.
(STAY) STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
46 C.W. 8043/2013 SMT LACHHI & ORS (STAY) STATE & ORS 47 C.W. 8050/2013 KHIV SINGH & ORS.
(STAY) STATE TH. SECRETARY & ORS. 48 C.W. 8052/2013 ALKA BERA (STAY) STAT E & ORS
49 C.W. 8053/2013 NAND LAL & ORS.
(STAY) STATE & ORS.
50 C.W. 8054/2013 MOOLCHAND MUNDEL (STAY) STATE OF RAJASTHAN 51 C.W. 8055/2013 HEMANT KUMAR & ORS.
(STAY) STATE & ORS.
5352 C.W. 8056/2013 RATAN DEVI VAISHNAV (STAY) STATE & ORS 53 C.W. 8059/2013 SUMAN DEVI & ORS (STAY) STATE & ORS.
54 C.W. 8061/2013 GHANSHYAM & ORS.
STATE & ORS.
55 C.W. 8062/2013 PUSHPA SAINI & ORS.
(STAY) STATE & ORS.
56 C.W. 8063/2013 PANKAJ & ORS.
(STAY) STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
57 C.W. 8070/2013 SANGEETA PANCHARIYA & ORS.
(STAY) STATE & ORS.
58 C.W. 8071/2013 FARUKH AHMED & ORS.
(STAY) STATE & ORS.
59 C.W. 8073/2013 HANUMANA RAM & ORS
54
(STAY) STATE & ORS
60 C.W. 8075/2013 KAMAL KISHORE (STAY) STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
61 C.W. 8079/2013 SHAFEEK AHMED & ANR.
(STAY) STATE & ORS 62 C.W. 8080/2013 TARUNA (STAY) STATE & ORS.
63 C.W. 8081/2013 AMER CHAND & ORS.
(STAY) STATE OF RAJASTHAN &
ORS
64 C.W. 8082/2013 JAGDISH INANIYA & ORS.
(STAY) STATE & ORS.
65 C.W. 8088/2013 ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA
& ORS
(STAY) STATE & ORS
66 C.W. 8097/2013 PRITHVIRAJ & ANR.
55
(STAY) STATE & ORS.
67 C.W. 8102/2013 JOGA RAM & ORS.
(STAY) STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
68 C.W. 8110/2013 PYAR CHAND & ORS (STAY) STATE & ORS 69 C.W. 8117/2013 HANUMANA RAM & ORS (STAY) STATE & ORS 70 C.W. 8138/2013 BHAGAWATI & ORS (STAY) STAT E & ANR 71 C.W. 8139/2013 AYUB DEEN GAURI & ORS (STAY) STAT E & ANR 72 C.W. 8146/2013 MANJU DEVI & ORS.
(STAY) STATE OF RAJASTHAN &
ORS.
56
73 C.W. 8158/2013 HAR CHAND RAM KOLI &
ORS
(STAY) STATE & ORS.
74 C.W. 8161/2013 RAMLAL MEGHWAL &
ORS
(STAY) STATE & ORS
75 C.W. 8185/2013 JAGDISH CHANDRA (STAY) STATE & ORS.
76 C.W. 8187/2013 SAROJ & ORS.
(STAY) STATE &ORS. 77 C.W. 8199/2013 ALKA SWAMI (STAY) STATE & ORS. 78 C.W. 8200/2013 MANJU BALA & ORS. (STAY) STATE & ORS.
79 C.W. 8203/2013 SMT TARA SHARMA & ORS (STAY) STATE & ORS 57 80 C.W. 8208/2013 URMILA & ORS (STAY) STATE & ORS.
81 C.W. 8211/2013 HAKEEM KHAN & ORS (STAY) STATE & ORS. 82 C.W. 8212/2013 LAXMI CHOUDHARY & ORS (STAY) STATE & ORS. 83 C.W. 8215/2013 NARENDRA KUMAR (STAY) STATE & ORS. 84 C.W. 8216/2013 HEM RAJ & ORS. (STAY) STATE & ORS. 85 C.W. 8218/2013 NANALAL MEENA & ORS (STAY) STATE & ORS
86 C.W. 8228/2013 SURESH CHANDRA PARMAR & ORS (STAY) STATE & ORS 58 87 C.W. 8236/2013 KRISHNA SONI (STAY) STATE &ORS.
88 C.W. 8247/2013 RAJESH KUMAR KHATIK & ORS (STAY) STATE & ORS 89 C.W. 8248/2013 MANSINGH DAMOR & ORS (STAY) STATE & ORS 90 C.W. 8253/2013 CHANDANA MEGHWAL & ORS (STAY) STATE & ORS 91 C.W. 8262/2013 NARENDRA SINGH BHATI & ORS (STAY) STATE & ORS 92 C.W. 8271/2013 DHARMISHTHA KUNWAR & ORS.
(STAY) STATE & ORS 93 C.W. 8272/2013 MOOLA RAM & ORS (STAY) STAT E & ORS 59 94 C.W. 8278/2013 LAHARI LAL BALAI & ORS (STAY) STATE & ORS.
95 C.W. 8282/2013 GODAVARI SUTHAR & ORS (STAY) STATE & ORS. 96 C.W. 8302/2013 HULASI MEGHWAL & ORS (STAY) STATE & ORS. 97 C.W. 8308/2013 NEETU KUMARI & ORS (STAY) STATE & ORS 98 C.W. 8311/2013 CHUNNI LAL & ORS (STAY) STATE & ORS 99 C.W. 8312/2013 SHIV NATH SINGH & ORS (STAY) STATE & ORS.
100 C.W. 8315/2013 MAMTA RAJ PUROHIT (STAY) STATE &ORS.
101 C.W. 8344/2013 VIRENDRA PAL KOUR & ANR.
STATE &ORS.
60102 C.W. 8346/2013 BALVANT SHARMA & ORS.
STATE &ORS.
103 C.W. 8394/2013 DILDAR & ANR (STAY) STATE & ANR.
104 C.W. 8396/2013 BISHAN RAM & ORS.
(STAY) STATE &ORS.
105 C.W. 8397/2013 NEELAM CHAUDHARY &
ORS
STAT E & ORS
106 C.W. 8402/2013 BALDEV RAJ CHOUHAN &
ORS.
(STAY) STATE &ORS.
107 C.W. 8405/2013 MONIKA JOSHI & ANR (STAY) STATE & ORS.
108 C.W. 8440/2013 KAILASH RAM
61
(STAY) STATE &ORS.
109 C.W. 8448/2013 BHERU SINGH (STAY) STATE & ORS 110 C.W. 8454/2013 KHUSBU MEGHWAL (STAY) STATE & ORS 111 C.W. 8534/2013 PRASA RAM PRAJAPAT & ORS (STAY) STATE & ORS 112 C.W. 8540/2013 ANURADHA KUMARI SHARMA (STAY) STATE & ORS.
113 C.W. 8551/2013 CHHOTA RAM (STAY) STAT E & ORS 114 C.W. 8553/2013 SHALOO & ANR (STAY) STAT E & ORS 115 C.W. 8577/2013 SANGEETA SHARMA & ORS (STAY) STATE & ORS.
62116 C.W. 8578/2013 SAROJ CHOUDHARY & ORS STATE & ORS.
117 C.W. 8607/2013 SHEELA SHARMA & ORS (STAY) STATE & ORS 118 C.W. 8633/2013 HEM KANWAR & ORS (STAY) STATE & ORS 119 C.W. 8688/2013 SHANKAR LAL & ORS.
(STAY) STATE &ORS.
120 C.W. 8807/2013 HARI PRASAD (STAY) STATE & ORS.
121 C.W. 8874/2013 MAHAVIR PRASAD & ANR (STAY) STATE & ORS 122 C.W. 8895/2013 GULAB KANWAR (STAY) STATE & ORS.
123 C.W. 8902/2013 KURYA PATEL
(STAY) STATE & ORS.
63
124 C.W. 8924/2013 DEVENDER KUMAR SHARMA & ANR (STAY) STATE & ORS 125 C.W. 8970/2013 VINOD KUMAR & ORS (STAY) STATE & ORS 126 C.W. 8976/2013 JITENDRA SINGH (STAY) STATE & ORS 127 C.W. 9003/2013 GULAB DAS SANT (STAY) STATE & ORS 128 C.W. 9053/2013 SHYAM SINGH (STAY) STATE & ORS 129 C.W. 9058/2013 SANJU & ORS (STAY) STATE & ORS 130 C.W. 9097/2013 ANITA & ORS.
(STAY) STATE & ANR.
131 C.W. 9100/2013 SMT.MANJULATA & ORS.
(STAY) STATE & ANR.
132 C.W. 9103/2013 HARI KISHAN NANDAN &
ANR.
(STAY) STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.
64
133 C.W. 9131/2013 SMT.ANITA CHOUHAN
STATE & ORS.
134 C.W. 9147/2013 PRAKASH CHANDRA GAMAR & ORS.
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.
135 C.W. 9154/2013 GURMEET KAUR
(STAY) STATE & ANR.
136 C.W. 9251/2013 SUNITA RAWAL & ORS
0515 STATE & ANR.
137 C.W. 9269/2013 BANITA & ORS
STATE & ANR
138 C.W. 9275/2013 GEETA DEVI & ORS.
STATE & ORS
139 C.W. 9295/2013 DEEPAK SINGH CHARAN &
ORS
STATE & ORS
140 C.W. 9298/2013 DHARMPAL SINGH
STATE & ORS
141 C.W. 7039/2013 CHANDA VAISHNAVA
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS
142 C.W. 9353/2013 RAMLAL YADAV
STATE & ORS
******