Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1340 (RAJ)

Devendra Kumar v. State Of Rajasthan

2009-05-15

PRAKASH TATIA

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. -Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In these bunch of writ petitions, the action of the respondent State has been challenged and the same action was under challenge before the Jaipur Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4652/2009 and connected 632 writ petitions decided by common judgment dated 8.5.2009. 3. The facts leading to this controversy are that the petitioners have been appointed as Vidharthi Mitras after issuance of the circular by the State Government on 2nd June, 2008 and the Vidharthi Mitras have been given appointment on account of possible delay in availability of RPSC selected candidates for promotion on the 6000 posts of Lecturers, 5000 posts of Senior Teachers and 1200 posts of Teacher Grade-III. The said Vidharthi Mitra Scheme was approved by the Finance Department vide circular dated 9.1.2007 and these Vidharthi Mitras were appointed on fixed remuneration as per their posts with condition that said recruitment will be for the period till the candidates connected cases of Vidhyarthi Mitra regularly selected by the RPSC/DPC are made available or till 29.2.2009. The term fixed originally was extended upto 15th April, 2009 and it was not extended thereafter. 4. Before or after 15th April, 2009, the petitioners approached this Court and various interim orders were passed in the present writ petitions as well as in the writ petitions preferred at Jaipur Bench. The bunch of writ petitions referred above have already been decided by the Jaipur Bench as mentioned on 8th May, 2009 and after considering all the arguments in detail and the judgment cited before the Coordinate Bench, the Coordinate Bench has disposed of all the writ petitions with following directions:- "36. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of as under:- I. During continuation of the work, as detailed out hereinabove, the invocation of the last extension is arbitrary and illegal; and the consequential automatic termination orders of the petitioners are set aside. II. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of as under:- I. During continuation of the work, as detailed out hereinabove, the invocation of the last extension is arbitrary and illegal; and the consequential automatic termination orders of the petitioners are set aside. II. The RPSC/DPC selected candidates/employees are still not available connected cases of Vidhyarthi Mitra and next academic sessions is about to start; even urgent temporary appointments under Rule 28 of the Rules of 1971 are not possible due to short span of one month and a half left to start with the process of admission and academic session, therefore, as per the aims and objects of the Scheme, respondents are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for continuation in service till regularly selected candidates from RPSC/persons selected and recommended by the DPC for promotion are made available in the light of the above observations; III. Even in case of appropriate order of continuation in service till regularly selected candidates from RPSC/DPC selected persons are available, the petitioners are not entitled for wages of the vacations, in other words, when the schools are closed. IV. In case the regularly selected candidates from RPSC/persons selected and recommended by the DPC for promotion are made available, then the respondents can terminate services of the petitioners after preparation of the seniority list on the State level as per their date of appointment and merit assigned to connected cases of Vidhyarthi Mitra them, by following the principle of 'last come first go' to the extent of availability of the selected candidates and while doing so, the respondents will keep the interest of the present students and prospective students in view." 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that substantially the relief has been granted to the petitioners by the said judgment dated 8.5.2009. However, according to learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are also entitled to the salary of the vacation period, which has been denied by the said judgment of the Jaipur Bench dated 8.5.2009. In view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and according to learned counsel for the petitioners the persons appointed as Teacher even on temporary basis, they have to complete the examination process and that is done after the examination and till the results are declared. Learned counsel for the petitioners read upon the judgments; {i} AIR 1987 SC 478 (Rattan Lal & Ors. Learned counsel for the petitioners read upon the judgments; {i} AIR 1987 SC 478 (Rattan Lal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. ), {ii} (1991)2 SCC 599 (Rabinarayan Mohapatra v. State of Orissa & Ors. ), {iii} 1988 (1) SLR 315 (P&H) (Ram Avtar Teacher & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. ), {iv} 1988(1) SLR 351 (SC) (Rajbinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.) , {v} 1991 WLR 124 (Anita Kothari v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. ). 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that there may arise some confusion as in the judgment dated 8.5.2009 while granting relief in sub-para II it has been observed that respondents are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for continuation in service till regularly selected candidates from RPSC/persons selected and recommended by the DPC for promotion are made available, then that may require the respondents to consider candidature of each and every petitioners for his continuation in service. 7. Since the Coordinate Bench after careful consideration of all the aspects of the matter has held that the petitioners shall not be entitled for wages of the vacation, in other words, when the schools are closed, I do not find any reason to take a different view because the facts of the case and the nature of appointment of the petitioner is different than the nature and appointment connected cases of Vidhyarthi Mitra given in regular course of appointment. Therefore, contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is rejected. 8. Therefore, contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is rejected. 8. So far as contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned that while granting relief by the judgment dated 8th May, 2009 it has been observed that "respondents are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for continuation in service till regularly selected candidates from RPSC/persons selected and recommended by the DPC for promotion are made available.." is concerned, that has been made clear in the same sub-para (II) of operative part of the judgment that, that is to be done in the light of the observation made in the judgment itself and in para no.34 of the judgment it has been observed "....Further argument of the counsel for the State is that the services of the petitioners came to an end automatically on 15.6.2009 and there is no reason to further extend the same is also not sustainable as where the examinations are over, checking of the answer sheets is going on and even if result is declared, then the admission process for the next connected cases of Vidhyarthi Mitra academic session is about to start for which also the services of the Teachers is required, therefore, the scheme is in force, the work is available and simply invocation of the last extension is held to be arbitrary and illegal." and in view of the above observation there cannot be any confusion in interpreting the sub-para (II) of the operative part of the judgment and there is no ambiguity in the judgment. 9. Hence, these writ petitions are allowed by this common order with the same directions as have been given in the judgment dated 8.5.2009, which are as under:- "36. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of as under:- I. During continuation of the work, as detailed out hereinabove, the invocation of the last extension is arbitrary and illegal; and the consequential automatic termination orders of the petitioners are set aside. II. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of as under:- I. During continuation of the work, as detailed out hereinabove, the invocation of the last extension is arbitrary and illegal; and the consequential automatic termination orders of the petitioners are set aside. II. The RPSC/DPC selected candidates/employees are still not available and next academic sessions is about to start; even urgent temporary appointments under Rule 28 of the Rules of 1971 are not possible due to short span of one month and a half left to start with the process of admission and academic session, therefore, as per the aims and objects of the Scheme, respondents are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for continuation in service till regularly selected candidates from RPSC/persons selected and recommended by the DPC for promotion are made available in the light of the above observations; III. Even in case of appropriate order of continuation in service till regularly selected candidates from RPSC/DPC selected persons are available, the petitioners are not entitled for wages of the vacations, in other words, when the schools are closed. IV. In case the regularly selected candidates from RPSC/persons selected and recommended by the DPC for promotion are made available, then the respondents can terminate services of connected cases of Vidhyarthi Mitra the petitioners after preparation of the seniority list on the State level as per their date of appointment and merit assigned to them, by following the principle of 'last come first go' to the extent of availability of the selected candidates and while doing so, the respondents will keep the interest of the present students and prospective students in view." Writ Petition Allowed *******