Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ahmad Ali vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 30 January, 2018
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
(1) D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 233 / 2018
Ahmad Ali S/o Shri Abbas Ali, Aged About 49 Years, Bycaste
Musalman, R/o Village Kelwara, District Rajsamand (Rajasthan).
----Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan, Through the Secretary, Department
of Education, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner (Rajasthan)
3. District Education Officer, Secondary, Rajsamand
(Rajasthan).
4. Zila Parishad, Rajsamand, Through Chief Executive Officer,
Rajsamand (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
Connected with
(2) D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 235 / 2018
Dildar Khan Pathan S/o Shri Basir Khan, Aged About 48 Years,
Bycaste Musalman, R/o Village Areth, Kelwara, District Rajsamand
(Rajasthan).
----Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan, Through the Secretary, Department
of Education, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner (Rajasthan)
3. District Education Officer, Secondary, Rajsamand
(Rajasthan).
4. Zila Parishad, Rajsamand, Through Chief Executive Officer,
Rajsamand (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
(3) D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 237 / 2018
Jagdish Chandra Sen S/o Shri Ladu Ram Nai, Aged About 48
Years, By Caste Nai, R/o Village Kelwara, District Rajsamand
(Rajasthan).
----Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan, Through the Secretary, Department
of Education, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
(2 of 5)
[SAW-233/2018 Bunch]
2. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner (Rajasthan)
3. District Education Officer, Secondary, Rajsamand
(Rajasthan).
4. Zila Parishad, Rajsamand, Through Chief Executive Officer,
Rajsamand (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
(4) D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 234 / 2018
Udai Lal Tailor S/o Shri Devi Lal Tailor, Aged About 50 Years,
Bycaste Tailor, R/o Village Kelwara, District Rajsamand
(Rajasthan).
----Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department
of Education, Secretariat, Jaipur. (Raj.)
2. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner (Rajasthan)
3. District Education Officer, Secondary Rajsamand (Rajasthan)
4. Zila Parishad, Rajsamand, Through Chief Executive Officer,
Rajsamand (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
(5) D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 236 / 2018
Hajari Lal S/o Shri Bima Ram, Aged About 39 Years, By Caste
Bheel, R/o Village Sathiya, Charbhuja, District Rajsamand
(Rajasthan).
----Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan, Through the Secretary, Department
of Education, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner (Rajasthan)
3. District Education Officer, Secondary, Rajsamand
(Rajasthan).
4. Zila Parishad, Rajsamand, Through Chief Executive Officer,
Rajsamand (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Appellant(s) : Mr. M.S. Godara
_____________________________________________________
(3 of 5)
[SAW-233/2018 Bunch]
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMCHANDRA SINGH JHALA
Order 30/01/2018
1. The appellants are aggrieved by an order dated 15.01.2018 dismissing the writ petitions filed by them.
2. Appellants were all appointed as Teacher Gr.III, now re- designated as Teacher Gr.III (Level-I or Level-II). As per the provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (herein after referred as 'the Act of 1994') Primary and Upper Primary Education being under the respective Zila Parishads their service was governed by the Act of 1994 and the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (herein after referred as 'the Rules of 1996').
3. A decision was taken to merge some Primary or Upper Primary schools with the nearby Secondary/Senior Secondary schools established by the State of Rajasthan under the cadre controlling Ministry being the Ministry of Education. The appellants were teachers in Primary and Upper Primary schools which was merged with Secondary/Senior Secondary schools and they questioned their service being transferred from the Panchayati Raj Department to direct employment under the State of Rajasthan in its Education Department.
4. The issue before the learned Single Judge was debated with reference to Section 89 (9) of the Act of 1994 and Rule 6 (D) of the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971. Rule 6 (D) of the Rules of 1971 which apply to teachers in schools directly established by the State Government contemplates filling (4 of 5) [SAW-233/2018 Bunch] up of vacancies in Secondary/Senior Secondary schools from teachers working in the Panchayat Samities in the Primary and Upper Primary schools and sub-section 9 of Section 89 of the Act of of 1994 mandates that persons holding posts encarded in service shall be eligible for appointment or promotion to posts directly under the State Government.
5. The learned Single Judge has noted that in an earlier decision dated 03.12.2005 in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1667/2015 Surendra Kumar Bhatt & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., noting Section 89 and Rule 6 (D) the view taken was that without the consent of teachers appointed under the Act of 1994, upon either upgradation or merger of Primary and Upper Primary schools with a Secondary/Senior Secondary school the service of teacher could be transferred under the State for the reason otherwise said teacher would become surplus. The appellants argued before the learned Single Judge that Rules 282 and 283 of the Rules of 1996 were not considered by the Court in Surendra Kumar Bhatt's case, for which the learned Single Judge noted that in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6272/2016 Bhagwana Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on 30.05.2016 the Court had considered the said two rules apart from Section 89 (9) of the Act of 1994 and Rule 6 (D) of the Rules of 1971 and pertaining to service under the State it contemplates appointment and transfer of Primary and Upper Primary school teachers. Sub-section 9 of Section 89 of the Act of 1994 makes eligible persons holding encarded posts under Zila Parishads to be appointed or promoted to the posts in State service in accordance with rules made in that (5 of 5) [SAW-233/2018 Bunch] behalf by the State Government. If what the appellants contend to be the legal position is accepted it would mean that the school in which they are working would be merged with the Secondary/Senior Secondary school and thus there would be no Primary or Upper Primary school left in which they could serve and thus they would face unemployment because posts held by them would cease to exist. All of them would be declared surplus and sent home.
6. We affirm the view taken by the learned Single Judge.
7. As regards grievance of being posted at a particular school the learned Single Judge has noted that a Grievance Redressal Committee has been constituted and has permitted the appellants to raise their grievance before the Grievance Redressal Committee.
8. The appeals are dismissed in limine.
(RAMCHANDRA SINGH JHALA)J. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)C.J. Mamta