Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Dinesh Kumar Sharma vs State (Education Department)Ors on 1 October, 2013
Author: Mn Bhandari
Bench: Mn Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER 1.SB Civil Writ Petition No.9826/2013 Devendra Kumar Sharma & anr versus State of Rajasthan & ors 2.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 10161/2013 Babulal Phogawat versus State of Rajasthan & ors 3.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 10897/2013 Dinesh Kumar Sharma versus State of Rajasthan & ors 4.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 10162/2013 Smt Vimla Kumari versus State of Rajasthan & ors 5.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 10295/2013 Mohan Lal Verma versus State of Rajasthan & ors 6.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 12248/2013 Mahesh Kumar Kumawat & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors 7.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 12011/2013 Bhanwar Lal Jat & anr versus State of Rajasthan & ors 8.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 12974/2013 Pawan Kumar Yadav versus State of Rajasthan & ors 1.10.2013 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr CP Sharma Mr Mahendra Sharma - for petitioner(s) Mr Ganesh Meena, Additional Advocate General for respondents Mr Praveen Gupta, Secretary, School Education BY THE COURT:
The petitioners are aggrieved for denial of benefit of experience for the period they were not allowed to join the services despite judgment of this court in their favour.
It is stated by learned counsel for petitioners that after their engagement as Vidyarthi Mitra, termination was effected in an illegal manner. It was challenged before this court followed by a favourable judgment. The compliance of the said judgment was not made rather it was challenged before the Division Bench. The appeal thereupon was also dismissed by the Division Bench yet there was a delay in accepting joining by two years or so. The respondents thus deprived the petitioners to work and earn wages immediately after judgment of this court holding termination to be illegal. It has further consequences inasmuch as post of Education Assistants has been advertised wherein bonus marks towards experience are provided for maximum period of 3 years. The respondents are not providing bonus marks of experience for the period petitioners were not allowed to join the post despite judgment of this court thus they are taking benefit of their own default.
Learned Additional Advocate General, on the other hand, submits that after the judgment of the learned Single Bench, appeals were preferred. They were then disposed of with certain directions. The compliance of the judgment was then made. The process for compliance takes time thus delay was not deliberate.
So far as question of experience certificate is concerned, though it is granted for the actual work done, however, looking to the facts situation of these cases, this court may pass appropriate order.
I have considered rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
I find that petitioners were earlier appointed as Vidyarthi Mitra. They were terminated thus writ petitions were filed and disposed of with the direction to allow joining to the petitioners. The operative portion of the judgment is quoted hereunder for ready reference -
In the light of what has been observed in CWP-4652/2009 vide judgment dt.08/05/2009 alongwith directions quoted (supra), all these writ petitions as per Schedule A attached herewith stands disposed of; and the District Education Officer/ concerned officer will also ensure that in the light of judgment (supra), the petitioners shall be permitted to join and discharge their duties as Vidhyarthi Mitra; however, it would be subject to afore quoted stay order and final outcome of special appeals (SA(W)-1237/09 and 525/2009 besides cognate appeals) would be binding upon all the petitioners, as well. No costs.
Same order has been passed in other writ petitions which were decided separately. The writ petitions preferred by the petitioners were thus allowed by similar orders from time to time. The respondents were expected to comply with the directions immediately unless interim order is passed in the special appeal. There is nothing on record to show interim order in their favour yet compliance of the judgment was not made. The contempt petitions are pending consideration before this court thus consequence of non-compliance of the order would be considered therein.
The question involved herein is as to whether petitioners can be denied benefit of the intervening period after the judgment and till joining for the purpose of experience certificate to get bonus marks. It is in the light of the fact that for the post of Education Assistant, 10 bonus marks for each year's experience is provided with ceiling of 30 marks. The petitioners are those who were not permitted to join for months or, in few cases, for two years or even now. The way respondents have conducted their affairs cannot be appreciated. In any case, due to their default, petitioners cannot be made to suffer. The learned Additional Advocate General is fair enough to state that the court may pass appropriate orders in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
In the light of the discussion made above, I find that petitioners were not allowed to join the post even after the judgment of this court, for months, in few cases two years and in few cases even now. Accordingly, the period intervening i.e. between the date of judgment of the learned Single Bench till acceptance of joining or if joining has not yet been allowed, till the crucial date given in the advertisement for experience certificate, petitioners would be treated to have gained experience so as to get bonus marks. It would be expected further from the respondents to see that compliance of the judgment of the court is immediately made otherwise a serious view can be taken in this matter also, rather the Principal Secretary of the department was called to find out as to why compliance was not made for years together. No specific clarification has been given by the Secretary, School Education, who is present in the court in place of the Principal Secretary of the department, who is on medical leave.
Accordingly, writ petitions are allowed. It is, however, clarified that the directions given in the writ petitions would not be treated as precedent for the purpose of experience as the directions have been given in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
(MN BHANDARI), J.
bnsharma All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed.
(BN Sharma) PS-cum-J