Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sarfraj vs State Of Raj. & Ors on 27 April, 2011
Author: Govind Mathur
Bench: Govind Mathur
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR.
ORDER
(1)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3625/2010
Akhil Raj. Prabodhak Sangh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(2)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3606/2010
Onkar Lal Sharma Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(3)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1739/2010
Mahesh Kumar Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(4)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3608/2010
Nek Parveen Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(5)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3749/2010
Manita Bhatnagar & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(6)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3814/2010
Murtaja Ali Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(7)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3815/2010
Sampat Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(8)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3816/2010
Jyoti Prakash Sharma Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(9)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3817/2010
Raja Ram Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(10)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3818/2010
Raghuveer Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(11)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3819/2010
Kailash Chand Gaur Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(12)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3820/2010
Yudhisther Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(13)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3893/2010
Teja Ram Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(14)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3895/2010
Maneer Deen Sherani Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
2
(15)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3896/2010
Surendra Singh Rathore Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(16)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3897/2010
Mohd. Yusuf Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(17)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3898/2010
Tulsi Ram Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(18)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3899/2010
Ravindra Pal Singh Rathore Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(19)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3900/2010
Padma Ram Bagaria Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(20)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3901/2010
Jetha Ram Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(21)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3902/2010
Rajendra Singh Rathore Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(22)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3903/2010
Manohar Singh Rathore Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(23)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3904/2010
Pancha Ram Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(24)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3905/2010
Sayad Sabir Ali Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(25)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3906/2010
Jenul Aabeddin Khan Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(26)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3916/2010
Prabhu Ramn Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(27)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3917/2010
Pema Ram Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(28)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3918/2010
Sabu Ram Kamediya Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(29)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3919/2010
Ummed Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(30)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3920/2010
Kana Ram Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
3
(31)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3921/2010
Sang Singh Bhati Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(32)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3922/2010
Mohan Ram Tard Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(33)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3923/2010
Jagdish Prasad Chhangani Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(34)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3924/2010
Virendra Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(35)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3925/2010
Murli Manohar Sharma Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(36)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3926/2010
Pema Ram Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(37)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3927/2010
Julfikar Ali Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(38)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3928/2010
Mohd. Aslam Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(39)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3929/2010
Sukh Ram Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(40)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3930/2010
Shankar Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(41)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3931/2010
Joga Ram Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(42)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3932/2010
Sukhram Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(43)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3933/2010
Pradeep Singh Borania Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(44)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3934/2010
Krishna Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(45)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3935/2010
Suresh Chand Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(46)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3936/2010
Vikram Singh Rathore Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
4
(47)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3937/2010
Kailash Changal Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(48)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3938/2010
Bhagirath Singh Rathore Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(49)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3939/2010
Kana Ram Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(50)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3940/2010
Ramswaroop Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(51)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3941/2010
Ratan Lal Kataniya Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(52)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3942/2010
Raghuveer Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(53)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3943/2010
Mohd. Iqbal Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(54)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3944/2010
Nand Kishore Sharma Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(55)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3945/2010
Tulsi Ram Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(56)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3946/2010
Puna Ram Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(57)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4301/2010
Kalu Ram Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(58)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4302/2010
Kailash Ram Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(59)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4303/2010
Parsa Ram Sherdiya Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(60)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4304/2010
Barkat Ali Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(61)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4305/2010
Hari Ram Sou Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(62)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4889/2010
Divya Malviya & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
5
(63)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7973/2010
Girdhari Lal Sadh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(64)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4274/2010
Narendra Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(65)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4275/2010
Sundari Jain Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(66)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4276/2010
Hari Om Sharma Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(67)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4277/2010
Tanwar Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(68)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4278/2010
Sarfraj Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(69)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4279/2010
Krishna Murari Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(70)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4280/2010
Shiv Raj Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(71)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4281/2010
Natwar Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(72)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4282/2010
Mohd. Shafik Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(73)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4283/2010
Manish Kumar Agarwal Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(74)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4284/2010
Smt. Savita Joshi Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(75)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4285/2010
Hemant Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(76)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4286/2010
Jyoti Vyas Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(77)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4287/2010
Hemant Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(78)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4288/2010
Bhupendra Singh Chandawat Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
6
(79)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4289/2010
Gordhan Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(80)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4290/2010
Jagdish Chandra Sharma Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(81)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4291/2010
Smt. Jai Mala Sharma Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(82)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4292/2010
Prakash Chandra Jain Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(83)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4293/2010
Shyam Lal Sharma Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(84)- S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4294/2010
Murli Manohar Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
Date of Order :: 27.4.2011
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR
Mr. Kuldeep Mathur ) for the petitioners.
Mr. Ramesh Purohit )
Mr. Arjun Purohit )
Mr. D.K. Godara )
Mr. Rajesh Bhati for Mr. R.L. Jangid, Addl. Advocate General for
the respondent - State.
....
BY THE COURT :
While accepting a batch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5657/2008 (Shakti Singh Yadav Vs. State & Ors.) by the judgment dated 8.2.2010, the respondents were directed as under :-
7
"(i) Respondents are directed to first prepare list of writ petitioners whose applications were received by the respondents in respective districts, and who were not called for interview for the reasons that there was summer break resulting in discontinuance of experience for five years, or experience certificate has not been verified, may be called for interview and this exercise be completed within two months;
and simultaneously, petitioners may also contact the office of the concerned authority; and
(ii) such of petitioners who are not found to be eligible for any other reason, may be assigned and communicated to each of them, to which if he feels aggrieved, will be free to avail of remedy under the law.
(iii) After completion of exercise referred to in para (i) & (ii) (supra), further process be initiated for finalizing merit list of respective districts and such petitioners may be considered for appointment if find place in order to merit in their respective district against advertised vacancies including those duly revised by subsequent corrigendum to advertisement dated 31.5.2008, within a period of three months thereafter in accordance with Rules, 2008 and in the light of judgments of this court (supra)."
8
Pertinent to note here that prior to disposal of the writ petitions referred above, the process of selection for the purpose of appointment as Prabodhak was already completed and appointments were already accorded to the petitioners. The directions in the case of Shakti Singh Yadav (supra) were given by this Court in absence of the petitioners.
Be that as it may, the Department of Education (Elementary) for executing the directions given by this Court in the case of Shakti Singh Yadav (supra) made request to the State Government to sanction certain number of additional posts of Prabodhak. The request so made was turned down by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Elementary Education vide order dated 10.3.2010 with further directions to declare the result of the selection process relating to the post of Prabodhak and to comply with the directions given by the Court by removing the junior most persons from service.
The petitioner, an Association of Prabodhaks employed in various Panchayati Raj Institutions in the State of Rajasthan apprehending termination of its members in pursuant to the order dated 10.3.2010 has approached this Court by way of filing this petition for writ to quash the order dated 10.3.2010 and further to restrain the respondents from terminating services of 9 the persons already appointed as Prabodhak. This Court by order dated 16.4.2010 while issuing notices to show cause to the respondents passed an interim order restraining the respondents from discontinuing the members of the petitioner-Association from service till 27.4.2010. The order dated 16.4.2010 reads as follows :-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Present writ petition has been filed by an association of Prabhodhaks etc. employed in Panchayati Raj institutions of Rajasthan.
Petitioner's contention is that the members of the petitioner-Sangh were duly selected on the post of Prabodhak according to process of selection and by rule 38 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008, they are governed by the - Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951; Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958; Rajasthan Travelling Allowance Rules, 1971; Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1998; Rajasthan Civil Services (Contributory Pension) Rules as amended time-to-time and the Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971. The members of the petitioner-Sangh by this time have completed almost two years of service.
Some of the candidates to the post of
Prabodhak were denied appointment on
10
various grounds, upon which several writ
petitions were filed before this Court, which were decided by the basic judgment delivered in Mangla Ram and others v. State of Rajasthan and others and connected 197 writ petitions, by judgment dated 27th January, 2010. This Court in above judgment directed the respondents to prepare a list of writ petitioners whose applications were received by the respondents, in respective districts and who were not called for interview, for the reason that there was summer break resulting in discontinuation of experience for 05 years or the experience certificate has not been verified; and they may be called for interview and this exercise be completed within two months. Then it was directed that the candidates, who are found not eligible in this process, they be supplied with the reasons for their non-selection. This Court directed to complete the exercise for finalizing merit list of respective districts within period of 03 months and such petitioners, obviously who are found suitable for appointment, be considered for appointment, if the candidate finds place in order of merit in their respective district.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the persons who are already selected and given appointment, were not party in any of the writ petitions nor their appointment was challenged. It is also 11 submitted that their appointments were not subject to decision of any of the writ petitions, as per petitioner's knowledge. Furthermore, in the judgment of this Court dated 27th January 2010, which has been followed in several, may be hundreds of writ petitions decided subsequent to judgment dated 27th January 2010 but no appointment of any of the persons has been quashed by the High Court nor it has been declared that the last person will have to leave the job to accommodate the new incumbent.
Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that as per process of selection, the marks are assigned on the basis of interview exclusively.
It is submitted that the appointment of members of the petitioner-Sangh, which was given in due process of selection and which has not been quashed and further, yet the complete merit lists of districts have not been finalized, then the process of removing the members of the petitioner can not be initiated.
This matter involves appointment of large number of persons, therefore, it requires consideration, Issue notices, returnable on 26.04.2010.12
Notices be filed in one day, in two sets. One set of the notices be given to the counsel for the petitioners for effecting service through Speed Post.
Meanwhile, the members of the petitioner-Sangh employed as Prabodhak shall not be discontinued till 27th April 2010."
In pursuant to the interim order aforesaid which was extended time to time, the petitioners are yet continuing as Prabodhak with the respondents.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the members of petitioner- Association were appointed as Prabodhak in substantive capacity as a consequent to regular process of selection. The service conditions of the Prabodhaks so employed are regulated as per Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008 (for short 'the Rules of 2008' hereinafter). The Rules aforesaid, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, nowhere prescribes any mode for discontinuation of Prabodhak from service, however, as per Rule 38 of the Rules of 2008, the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, as amended time to time and the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, as amended time to time are having application on them. If the respondents, 13 for any reason, desired to terminate the members of the petitioner-Association from service, the procedure prescribed under the Rules mentioned above should have been adhered. It is further pointed out that as a matter of fact, no direction was given by this Court to discontinue the petitioner from service in the case of Shakti Singh Yadav (supra), therefore, the direction given to terminate already employed Prabodhaks under the communication dated 10.3.2010 is erroneous. It is also asserted that the petitioners were not party to the writ proceedings in the case of Shakti Singh Yadav, therefore, the directions given therein cannot be made applicable to them.
While meeting with the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that the instructions given under communication dated 10.3.2010 are nothing, but necessary directions for making compliance of the orders given by this Court. As per the respondents, they are having a definite number of posts and for making necessary compliance of the directions given by this Court in the case of Shakti Singh Yadav (supra), the persons, who are at lower pedestal in the select list, are required to be removed from service.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
14It is not in dispute that the petitioners were employed with respondents as Prabodhak as a consequent to regular process of selection against the substantive vacancies. The members of the petitioner-Association, thus, are holding the post of Prabodhak in substantive capacity. It is also not in dispute that the Prabodhaks, who are members of the petitioner-Association were not party to the proceedings in the case of Shakti Singh Yadav or other petitions for writ decided alongwith the case aforesaid. The respondents if for any reason wanted to discontinue the Prabodhaks already employed like members of the petitioner- Association then they should have adhered the principles of natural justice. No action could have been taken abruptly by discontinuing these persons from service.
It is also relevant to note here that no direction was given by this Court to the respondents to discontinue the already employed Prabodhaks in the case of Shakti Singh Yadav (supra). As a matter of fact, in the writ petitions those came to be decided on 8.2.2010, the selection of the petitioners was neither under challenged nor that was considered and quashed by this Court.
As such, I am of the view that the directions given to terminate already employed Prabodhaks from service, without 15 giving an opportunity of hearing to such Prabodhaks is erroneous.
The writ petition, accordingly deserves acceptance, the same is allowed. The instructions given under the communication dated 10.3.2010 to the extent of removing already employed Prabodhak is quashed. Any order, if passed in pursuant to the instructions given under the communication dated 10.3.2010, then that shall be treated nonest. The respondents while making compliance of the directions given in the case of Shakti Singh Yadav (supra) and others if feels necessary may take appropriate steps to discontinue the already employed Prabodhaks from service by adopting a fair procedure and by adhering the principles of natural justice. No Prabodhaks already employed prior to decision of this Court in the case of Shakti Singh Yadav (supra) and others shall be discontinued from service without affording adequate opportunity of hearing.
No order as to costs.
(GOVIND MATHUR)J. Rm/