Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2200 (RAJ)

Jyoti Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

2005-08-22

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2005
Judgment Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.-By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that the respondents may be directed to extend the period of joining in consequence of appointment order dated 05.09.2003 till April 2004. In the alternative, it has also been prayed that the respondents may be directed to allow the petitioner to join forthwith and they may further be directed to grant her maternity leave. 2. The petitioner applied in pursuance of advertisement dated 28.07.2003 (Annexure-3) issued by respondent No. 2 for the post of Teacher (Grade-III). After due process of recruitment, the petitioner was selected and appointed by order dated 05.09.2003 wherein her name appeared at S.No. 23. At the time of her appointment the petitioner was pregnant and, therefore, she moved an application dated 09.09.2003 for extension of the joining time. The respondents, however, issued another order dated 10.09.2003 whereby the posting place of the petitioner was changed and she was directed to join in the office of the Additional Chief Executive Officer, Elementary Education. Thereafter, again the petitioner moved an application for granting her extension of time to join service. When the petitioner heard nothing about the fate of her application, she served notice upon the respondents for demand of justice. But no heed was given by the respondents for redressal of her grievance. Hence, this writ petition. 3. In reply, the respondents submitted that the appointment order issued in favour of inter alia the petitioner was withdrawn due to non-availability of posts and only candidates upto S.No. 18 in the merit list of the general category were allowed to join. The respondents contended that name of the petitioner being at S.No. 23 of the merit list of general category candidates; in view of the fact that there was no vacancy in existence her appointment order was withdrawn. 4. During the course of arguments, Counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of the Court order dated 20.02.2004 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ petition No. 5528 of 2003 and 12 other writ petitions, preferred by similarly situated persons against the impugned action of the respondents, whereby the writ petition were allowed and the respondents were directed to immediately allow the petitioners to join. This Court further directed that the petitioners would also be entitled to all emoluments from the date they submitted their respective joining reports. This Court further directed that the petitioners would also be entitled to all emoluments from the date they submitted their respective joining reports. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the State appeals filed against the order dated 20.02.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge have been dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 211.2004 and thus the order dated 20.02.2004 has attained finality. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, contended that when similarly situated persons have been granted the relief in pursuance whereof they have already been allowed to join and they are in service the petitioner, in the present writ petition, is also entitled to be allowed to join the service because the case of the petitioner is in no way distinguishable from the case of the petitioners in those writ petitions. 6. I have gone through the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 211.2004 as well as order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 20.02.2004. Before the Division Bench, the State conceded the position and the learned Additional Advocate General stated that the petitioners can be allowed to join against existing current vacancies, on the basis of their regular selections. The Division Bench ordered the State authorities to allow the petitioners to join service by 7th December, 2004. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the controversy involved is squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench and, therefore, the present petitioner is also entitled to the same relief . The learned Additional Government Advocate does not dispute this position. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file representation to the respondents which shall be considered by the respondents in the light of the Judgment of this Court dated 20.02.2004 delivered in Ram Niwas Dhakas case as also the directions given by the Division Bench in Judgment dated 211.2004 in D.B. Special Appeal (W) No. 684/2004 and 12 other special appeals. Such representation shall be filed by the petitioner within 15 days from today and the respondents are directed to consider the same within one month from the date of filing of the representation and pass appropriate orders.