Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 184 (RAJ)

Ratanlal Prajapati v. State of Rajasthan

2003-02-05

SUNIL KUMAR GARG

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition u/Art. 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 16.10.1990 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 15.11.1989 (Ex.18) passed by the respondents by which the petitioner was declared surplus, be quashed and set aside. 2. The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows:- The petitioner was first appointed as LDC in the Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj (for short 'Panchayati Raj Department') by order dated 8.1.1980 (Ex.1) and he was posted at the office of Principal, Gram Sewak Prashiksan Kendra, Mandore and in pursuance of the said order Ex.1, the petitioner joined his duties on 14.1.1980. According to the petitioner, vide order dated 10.8.1981 (Ex.2), a provisional seniority list of all the LDCs in the Panchayati Raj Department was issued. The further case of the petitioner is that by a fresh order dated 6.12.1985, he was appointed as LDC-cum-Steno Typist in the Gram Sewak Prashiksan Kendra, Mandore and a copy of that order dated 6.12.1985 is marked as Ex. 3 and in pursuance of that order Ex. 3, the petitioner joined his duties on 7.12.1985. But, by order dated 21.9.1989 (Ex. 4), the newly created post of LDC-cum-Steno Typist, which was created through order Ex. 3, was abolished. The further case of the petitioner is that on abolition of post of LDC-cum-Steno Typist, he was relieved from his post of LDC-cum-Steno Typist and was declared surplus vide impugned order Ex. 18 without following the procedure as laid down in the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Surplus Personnel) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules of 1969') and the instructions issued by the State Government vide Circular dated 20.5.1978. Hence, this writ petition with the prayers as stated above. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and gone through the materials available on record. 4. Hence, this writ petition with the prayers as stated above. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and gone through the materials available on record. 4. Before proceeding further, it may be stated here that although this writ petition, a stay petition was filed and on stay petition, this Court vide order dated 17.10.1990 ordered that status quo as it existed on 17.10.1990 be maintained and that order later on was confirmed till disposal of the writ petition vide order dated 25.8.1999 meaning thereby the order Ex.18 remained inoperative. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that at present the petitioner is holding the post of LDC in the office of S.D.O. Jodhpur. 6. So far as the issuance of order Ex. 18 by which the petitioner was declared surplus is concerned, from perusing the writ petition as well as the reply of the respondents, it clearly appears that before passing that order Ex. 18, the procedure as laid down in the Rules of 1969 and the circular dated 20.5.1978 was not followed by the respondents and, therefore, from this point of view, the impugned order Ex. 18 cannot be sustained. 7. Apart from this, since the impugned order Ex. 18 was passed on 15.11.1989 near about 13 years before and that order remained inoperative and, therefore, from this point of view also, that order Ex. 18 has now become redundant and from this point of view also, it has got no importance today. 8. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order Ex. 18 is liable to be quashed and set aside.Accordingly, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the impugned order Ex.18 dated 15.11.1989 passed by the respondents is quashed and set aside and it is further ordered that the petitioner shall be treated in service as if he was never declared surplus and he shall be entitled to all consequential which have accrued to him after filing of the writ petition and the same be given to him now, if they have not been given to him so far. No order as to costs.Writ petition allowed. *******