Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dhanraj Meena vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 August, 2020
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6610/2020
1. Dhanraj Meena S/o Sh. Nand Lal, Aged About 41 Years,
R/o Village And Post Khuri, Tehsil Atru, District Baran
(Raj.).
2. Devki Nandan Meena S/o Sh. Ganpat Lal Meena, Aged
About 37 Years, R/o Village Post Ladpura, Tehsil Taleda,
District Bundi (Raj.)
3. Rameshwar S/o Sh. Ganesh, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
Village Post Nautada (Bhopot), Tehsil Taleda, District
Bundi (Raj.)
4. Jagdish Meena S/o Sh. Narayan Meena, Aged About 45
Years, R/o Village Post Ballop, Tehsil Taleda, District Bundi
(Raj.)
5. Bhanwar Singh S/o Sh. Chhitar Singh, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Village Post Jhakmoond, Tehsil Taleda, District
Bundi (Raj.)
6. Mahaveer S/o Sh. Kalyan Das, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Village Post Rajpura, Tehsil Taleda, District Bundi (Raj.)
7. Harji Lal S/o Sh. Moti Shankar, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
Village Post Budhpura, Tehsil Taleda, District Bundi (Raj.)
8. Sanjay Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Ramkishor Sharma, Aged
About 40 Years, R/o Village Post Jhanwar Sagar, Tehsil
Taleda, District Bundi (Raj.)
9. Jay Lal S/o Sh. Narayan, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village
Budhpura Post Gopalpura, Tehsil Taleda, District Bundi
(Raj.)
10. Ram Narayan S/o Sh. Bala Ram, Aged About 46 Years,
R/o Village Post Dehit, Tehsil Taleda, District Bundi (Raj.)
11. Ram Prasad S/o Sh. Prabhu Lal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Village Post Dolada, Tehsil Taleda, District Bundi (Raj.)
12. Chhotu Lal S/o Sh. Kishan, Aged About 48 Years, R/o
Village Post Kethuda, Tehsil Taleda, District Bundi (Raj.)
13. Narayan, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Village Post Ramganj,
Tehsil Taleda, District Bundi (Raj.)
14. Ramswroop S/o Sh. Gopi Lal, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
Village Post Anthada, Tehsil Taleda, District Bundi (Raj.)
15. Govind Lal S/o Sh. Mangi Lal, Aged About 49 Years, R/o
(Downloaded on 07/08/2020 at 08:46:29 PM)
(2 of 12) [CW-6610/2020]
Village Post Leelera, Tehsil Taleda, District Bundi (Raj.)
16. Monu S/o Sh. Ram Lal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village
Post Suwasa, Tehsil Taleda, District Bundi (Raj.)
17. Lokesh Pareekh S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand Pareekh, Aged
About 32 Years, R/o Village Post Badgaon, Tehsil Hindoli,
District Bundi (Raj.)
18. Hari Shankar Sharma S/o Sh. Bhanwar Lal Sharma, Aged
About 50 Years, R/o Village Post R.c. Kheda, Tehsil
Hindoli, District Bundi (Raj.)
19. Hemraj Sen S/o Banshi Lal Sen, Aged About 40 Years,
R/o Village Post Bundi Ka Gothda, Tehsil Hindoli, District
Bundi (Raj.)
20. Ram Lal S/o Sh. Gokul Sharma, Aged About 45 Years, R/o
Village Post Hindoli, Tehsil Hindoli, District Bundi (Raj.)
21. Ram Narayan Sharma S/o Sh. Pushkar Raj Sharma, Aged
About 42 Years, R/o Village Post Sanwatgarh, Tehsil
Hindoli, District Bundi (Raj.)
22. Sita Ram S/o Sh. Kajod Gurjar, Aged About 42 Years, R/o
Village Post Bansoli, Tehsil Hindoli, District Bundi (Raj.)
23. Mool Chand Saini S/o Sh. Nola Ji, Aged About 44 Years,
R/o Village Post Badodiya, Tehsil Hindoli, District Bundi
(Raj.)
24. Satyanarayan Sen S/o Shyam Lal Sen, Aged About 40
Years, R/o Village Post Otha, Tehsil Hindoli, District Bundi
(Raj.)
25. Raju Lal Teli S/o Sh. Ramdhan Teli, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o Village Post Nagad, Tehsil Hindoli, District Bundi
(Raj.)
26. Raju Gurjar S/o Prabhu Lal, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
Village Post Alod, Tehsil Hindoli, District Bundi (Raj.)
27. Dhanraj Gurjar S/o Sh. Foru Lal, Aged About 34 Years,
R/o Village Post Mangli Kalan, Tehsil Hindoli, District Bundi
(Raj.)
28. Raj Kumar S/o Sh. Kajod Gurjar, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o Village Post Cheta, Tehsil Hindoli, District Bundi (Raj.)
29. Ramesh Chand S/o Sh. Narayan Bariwa, Aged About 42
Years, R/o Village Post Bhawanipura, Tehsil Hindoli,
District Bundi (Raj.)
30. Phool Chand S/o Sh. Narayan Bariwa, Aged About 42
(Downloaded on 07/08/2020 at 08:46:29 PM)
(3 of 12) [CW-6610/2020]
Years, R/o Village Post Taducha, Tehsil Hindoli, District
Bundi (Raj.)
31. Prakash S/o Sh. Mangi Lal Bairwa, Aged About 38 Years,
R/o Village Post Panch Ki Bavdi, Tehsil Hindoli, District
Bundi (Raj.)
32. Ramehs Kumar S/o Sh. Gangaram Meena, Aged About 41
Years, R/o Village Post Vijay Garh, Tehsil Hindoli, District
Bundi (Raj.)
33. Prabhu Lal S/o Sh. Ram Valabh Gurjar, Aged About 44
Years, R/o Village Post Chatarganj, Tehsil Hindoli, District
Bundi (Raj.)
34. Bihari S/o Sh. Raghunath Ji, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
Village Post Anantganj, Tehsil Hindoli, District Bundi (Raj.)
35. Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh. Chotthmal, Aged About 43 Years,
R/o Village Post Daikheda, Tehsil Patan, District Bundi
(Raj.)
36. Rajaram Bairwa S/o Sh. Jagannath, Aged About 45 Years,
R/o Village Post Gudha, Tehsil Patan, District Bundi (Raj.)
37. Mahaveer Prasad Meena S/o Sh. Suraj Mal Meena, Aged
About 41 Years, R/o Village Post Paperi, Tehsil Patan,
District Bundi (Raj.)
38. Jagdish Prasad Meena S/o Radheshyam Meena, Aged
About 42 Years, R/o Village Post Kherayata, Tehsil Patan,
District Bundi (Raj.)
39. Mahender Kumar Meena S/o Giriraj Prasad, Aged About
38 Years, R/o Village Post Labaan, Tehsil Patan, District
Bundi (Raj.)
40. Jagdish Prasad Meena S/o Sh. Ramnath, Aged About 41
Years, R/o Village Post Guhatha, Tehsil Patan, District
Bundi (Raj.)
41. Yashraj Gurjar S/o Sh. Radheshyam, Aged About 37
Years, R/o Village Post Babi, Tehsil Patan, District Bundi
(Raj.)
42. Dinesh Kumar Meena S/o Badri Lal, Aged About 36 Years,
R/o Village Post Karvala Ki Jhopdiya, Tehsil Patan, District
Bundi (Raj.)
43. Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Sitaram Meena, Aged About 38
Years, R/o Village Khedi Mehata, Post Jalota, Tehsil Patan,
District Bundi (Raj.)
(Downloaded on 07/08/2020 at 08:46:29 PM)
(4 of 12) [CW-6610/2020]
44. Brajraj S/o Sh. Chitar Lal, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
Village Post Bhiya, Tehsil Patan, District Bundi (Raj.)
45. Dwarka Lal Prajapat S/o Sh. Modu Lal, Aged About 42
Years, R/o Village Post Jhethal, Tehsil Patan, District Bundi
(Raj.)
46. Gajendra S/o Sh. Mohan Lal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
Village Post Chitawa, Tehsil Patan, District Bundi (Raj.)
47. Brajmohan Meena S/o Sh. Jaganath, Aged About 38
Years, R/o Village Post Karlawa, Tehsil Patan, District
Bundi (Raj.)
48. Omashankar Saini S/o Sh. Madan Lal Saini, Aged About
40 Years, R/o Village Post Arnetha, Tehsil Patan, District
Bundi (Raj.
49. Banty Gautam S/o Sh. Ashok Gautam, Aged About 33
Years, R/o Village And Post Richanda, Tehsil Atru, District
Baran (Raj.)
50. Tejkaran Gurjar S/o Sh. Ram Gopal, Aged About 42 Years,
R/o Village And Post Kishanpura, Tehsil Atru, District
Baran (Raj.)
51. Ashok Sharma S/o Sh. Gyan Dev Sharma, Aged About 41
Years, R/o Village And Post Sakatpura, Tehsil Atru, District
Baran (Raj.
52. Bhoj Ram S/o Sh. Ram Dayal Kumar, Aged About 40
Years, R/o Village And Post Banbori, Tehsil Atru, District
Baran (Raj.)
53. Omprakash S/o Sh. Babulal Nagar, Aged About 35 Years,
R/o Village And Post Badora, Tehsil Atru, District Baran
(Raj.)
54. Mukesh Kumar S/o Sh. Dwarka Lal, Aged About 39 Years,
R/o Village And Post Sher Garh, Tehsil Atru, District Baran
(Raj.)
55. Narotam S/o Sh. Ram Prasad, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Village Post Kanotiya, Tehsil Atru, District Baran (Raj.)
56. Hari Shankar S/o Sh. Lattar Lal Meghwal, Aged About 42
Years, R/o Village And Post Sherod, Tehsil Atru, District
Baran (Raj.)
57. Babu Lal Suman S/o Sh. Banshi Lal, Aged About 38 Years,
R/o Village And Post Adarnd, Tehsil Atru, District Baran
(Raj.)
(Downloaded on 07/08/2020 at 08:46:29 PM)
(5 of 12) [CW-6610/2020]
58. Inder Ram Meena S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand, Aged About 42
Years, R/o Village And Post Maremachah, Tehsil Atru,
District Baran (Raj.)
59. Ritu Raj Gurjar S/o Sh. Hamraj Gurjar, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Village And Post Chardana, Tehsil Atru, District
Baran (Raj.)
60. Chhotu Lal S/o Hs. Ram Kalyan, Aged About 36 Years,
R/o Village And Post Goverdhan Pura, Tehsil Atru, District
Baran (Raj.)
61. Tola Ram S/o Sh. Surajmal, Aged About 41 Years, R/o
Village And Post Kunjad, Tehsil Atru, District Baran (Raj.)
62. Saudan Gurjar S/o Sh. Ram Kumar Gurjar, Aged About 40
Years, R/o Village And Post Nenawta, Tehsil Atru, District
Baran (Raj.)
63. Bharat Gurjar S/o Sh. Chhotu Lal Gurjar, Aged About 42
Years, Village And Post Karvaliya, Tehsil Atru, District
Baran (Raj.)
64. Chandra Bhan Meena S/o Sh. Madan Lal Meena, Aged
About 45 Years, R/o Village And Post Dhakad Maholla,
Geerod, Tehsil Atru, District Baran (Raj.)
65. Hemraj S/o Sh. Devi Lal, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
Village And Post Kawai, Tehsil Atru, District Baran (Raj.)
66. Raghuver Meena S/o Sh. Tolaram Meena, Aged About 41
Years, R/o Village And Post Hathi Dilod, Tehsil Atru,
District Baran (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj (Panchayati
Raj), Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Deputy Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
Department, Secretariat Jaipur.
3. District Collector, Bundi (Raj.)
4. District Collector, Baran (Raj.).
5. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bundi, Rajasthan.
6. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Baran, Rajasthan.
7. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Taleda District
Bundi (Raj).
(Downloaded on 07/08/2020 at 08:46:29 PM)
(6 of 12) [CW-6610/2020]
8. Pdevelopment Officer, Panchayat Samiti Hindoli District
Bundi (Raj).
9. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Patan District
Bundi (Raj).
10. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Atru District Baran
(Raj).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Bhawla, on video
call
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 06/08/2020
1. In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, lawyers have been advised to refrain from coming to the Courts.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the very outset, submits that the controversy raised in the instant writ application stands resolved in view of the adjudication made by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mukesh Kumar Khatik v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 5049/2014, decided on 1st September, 2014, observing thus:
"The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for seeking direction to the respondents to allow him to serve in the office of the Special Public Prosecutor, Bhilwara and further prayed that respondents may kindly be directed to pay regular salary directly not through the placement agency.
As per the facts of the case, the petitioner was engaged on the post of Stenographer on contract basis through placement agency Trig Ex-servicemen Welfare Cooperative Society Ltd. and he was given posting in the office of Addl. Public Prosecutor, Bhilwara vide order dated (Downloaded on 07/08/2020 at 08:46:29 PM) (7 of 12) [CW-6610/2020] 31.1.2012. The petitioner was allowed to work continuously on the said post but all of sudden, the State Government issued an order dated 28.4.2014 by which the services of all those employees who were engaged through placement agency under the control of Department of Law and Justice were extended upto 30.6.2014 and it was made clear that they remain in service upto 30.6.2014 or till regular appointments are made. The petitioner has annexed the said order with the writ petition as annex.6. The petitioner present in person submit hat till today no regular selection took place for appointment on the post of Stenographer, so also, the post in question is still in existence, therefore, the impugned order dated 28.4.2014 extending his service tenure upto to 30.6.2014 is not sustainable in law. Therefore, it is prayed that order may be quashed and respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner to work on the post in question till regularly selected candidates are made available.
Mr. Madan Lal, Officer Inchare present in person for the respondents submit that appointment of the petitioner was not in accordance with the Rules. The appointment was made through the placement agency known as Trig Exservicemen Welfare Co-operative Society Ltd., therefore, there is no relationship of master and servant in between the State Government and the petitioner. It is also submitted by Mr.Madan Lal that at Government level a decision was taken for engaging employees on contractual basis whereby the State Government took decision that the department may engage retired employees as per laid down procedure/relevant rules on DOP rates against vacant post, as per the actual requirement for a period of 6 months or till regular appointment is made, whichever is earlier subject to further provision that if retired persons are not available present contractual arrangement of job contact through placement agency for 23 stenographs, 13 LDC and 32 Class- IV services may be taken. Meaning thereby, the Law (Downloaded on 07/08/2020 at 08:46:29 PM) (8 of 12) [CW-6610/2020] Department took decision to engage the petitioner through placement agency, therefore, there is no illegality in the decision taken by the State Government. Mr. Madan Lal vehemently argued that no case is made out for interference because petitioner was appointed through placement agency and there is no relationship of master and servant in between the petitioner and the Law Department, therefore, this writ petition maybe dismissed. After hearing the petitioner as well as the representative of the Government, first of all, I have perused the decision taken by the Government, which is placed on record as Annex.R/1 dated 7.3.2014. The same is reproduced as under:-
"Department may engage retired employees as per laid down procedure/relevant rules on DoP rates against vacant posts, as per actual requirement for a period of six months or till regular appointment is made, whichever is earlier, subject to further provision that if retired persons are not available, present contractual arrangement of job contract through agency for 23 Stenographer, 13 LDC and 32 Class-IV services may be taken.
FD also concurs for hiring 48 services of computer machine with man upto 28.02.2015 (as per guidelines issued by the FD), if necessary, as per actual requirement against vacant posts of similar nature, until regular recruitment takes place, whichever is earlier.
It bears approval of FD at competent level."
Upon perusal of above decision it is apparently clear that the post of Stenographer, LDC and Class-IV employee are in existence but only mode of engagement is changed under the above decision. It is very strange that large number of young qualified persons are available and waiting for the job and no recruitments are made by the State Government on the post of Stenographer, LDC and Class-IV (Downloaded on 07/08/2020 at 08:46:29 PM) (9 of 12) [CW-6610/2020] employees in the Law Department from last so many years and a decision was taken to engage employees through placement agency. In case of Mooli Devi Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2010 (4) WLC (Raj.) 334 this Court has disapproved the procedure for engagement through placement agency and following directions were issued:
"41. Therefore, for these reasons, this Court is inclined to allow these writ petitions with aforesaid directions and following answers to the questions framed above. CONCLUSIONS:
(i) Question No.1 is answered in the manner that employment of teachers for SSA or KGBV is a `sovereign function' of imparting education by the State Government or the Central Government and such `sovereign function' including employment of teachers for imparting education cannot be delegated to private placement agencies by the State Government.
(ii) Question No.2 is answered like this that since the State Government has not so far enacted any law nor it has laid down any guidelines or parameters for selection of private placement agencies, therefore, practice of giving away such contract by the State Govt. to the private placement agencies is unconstitutional and cannot be sustained and the teachers and other related staff in SSA or KGBV cannot be treated as employees of private placement agencies whether such projects are financed by the Central Government or the State Government or any other agency.
(iii) Question No.3 is answered in the manner that the object of SSA Or KGBV is not a project of limited tenure or period and the nonavailability of funds cannot be a ground to discontinue the said educational programmes and such programmes even with or (Downloaded on 07/08/2020 at 08:46:29 PM) (10 of 12) [CW-6610/2020] without the change of name have to be continued to give effect to the provisions of the Act No.35 of 2009, namely, Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and Article 21A of the Constitution of India.
(iv) Question No.4 is answered in the manner that the provision of Article 21A and provisions of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 are of paramount and supervening importance and Appropriate Governments should adopt a uniform employment policy for teachers and other staff under it with assured continuity of employment with all other benefits which are payable to regular civil servants including the teachers employed in Government schools even as of now.
(v) Question No.5 is answered in the manner that teachers cannot be treated as workmen so as to subject them to the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
(vi) Question No.6 is answered in negative and it is held that fixed term contract of service for the teachers in SSA or KGBV Projects on year to year basis by different placement agencies with no assured continuity of employment is not justified, nor it is a legally sustainable practice.
42. With the writ petitions allowed by the aforesaid directions to the State Government to continue the services of petitioners till regularly selected candidates are appointed in the respective positions, this Court is not inclined to initiate any contempt action against the respondents at this stage against the alleged violation of interim orders passed by this Court and, therefore, the contempt petitions are dismissed and notices are discharged.
43. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed with no (Downloaded on 07/08/2020 at 08:46:29 PM) (11 of 12) [CW-6610/2020] costs."
In view of above judgment, obviously the appointment through placement agency is not proper, but at the same time, the engagement of retired persons is also not in consonance with the constitutional provision because large number of qualified young unemployed candidates are waiting for appointment, therefore, young qualified candidates possessing requisite qualification are better than the retired person and their service can be utilized upon the posts available with the Government on temporary basis. Here in this case, when a conscious decision is taken by the respondents for making regular recruitment and till then to engage the employees on contract basis or by way of recruitment of retired person then why order has been passed to disengage the petitioner to work on the post in question which he was provided appointment through placement agency.
In view of the above this Court disapprove the decision of the Government to engage retired employees on the post in question, therefore, it is held that no retired person shall be appointed on the post in question and if the petitioner's work is satisfactory, though he was appointed through placement agency, then he may be allowed to work said post till duly selected candidates made available as per decision of Mooli Devi's case.
In view of the above, the instant petition is allowed with the following directions:
(i) the petitioner may be permitted to work on the post in question till regular selected candidates made available for the post in question as per the decision taken by the Government;
(ii) no retired person shall be engaged on these regular sanctioned posts;
(iii) the stay is operated in this case, therefore, the (Downloaded on 07/08/2020 at 08:46:29 PM) (12 of 12) [CW-6610/2020] petitioner may be permitted to work on the post in question till regularly selected candidates are made available upon the same terms and conditions upon which he was engaged."
3. It is further contended that for the present; the petitioners would be satisfied, if the State-respondents are directed to decide the representation of the petitioners, within a time frame, in the light of the adjudication in the case of Mukesh Kumar Khatik (supra), which they are ready and willing to address within two weeks hereinafter.
4. In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant writ proceedings are closed with a direction to the petitioners to address a comprehensive ventilating the grievances raised in the writ application. In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid period, the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. However, in no case later than ten weeks from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order.
5. With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ petition stands disposed of.
6. The stay petition also stands disposed of.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 72-Sanjay/-
(Downloaded on 07/08/2020 at 08:46:29 PM)Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)