Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 10 (RAJ)

Rekha v. State of Rajasthan

2018-01-02

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2018
ORDER : Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs :- (i) the termination order dated 07.7.2014 (Annex.3) issued by the respondent no.3 and decision on the representation dated 25.8.2015 (Annex.6) be quashed and set aside. (ii) Appointment order be issued immediately in pursuance of order dated 31.12.2015 (Annex.5) passed by the respondent no.2 wherein it has clearly been stated that the appointment order has never been issued. (iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (iv) Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs." 2. The respondents conducted selections for Safai Karamchari vide notification dated 20.12.2013 and name of petitioner figured at Sr. No.131 in the list of selected candidates issued by respondents on 3.3.2014. The petitioner approached the respondents but was not taken on job and thereafter an order was issued on 7.7.2014 terminating services of petitioner on account of her failure to join. Counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner submitted a detailed representation on 26.3.2015 and thereafter approached this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7749/2015, decided on 28.7.2015, which is Annex.5 of the writ petition. This Court vide order dated 28.7.2015 directed the respondents to consider representation of the petitioner. The Municipal Council, Udaipur rejected the representation on the count of the fact that the appointment order had been uploaded on the official website and, thus, the plea of petitioner that she has not been conveyed the appointment order cannot be accepted, however, the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Local Bodies decided the representation of the petitioner subsequently on 31.12.2015 in which it has been recorded that the appointment order was not served upon the petitioner and, thus, her joining should be considered by the respective Municipal Council of Udaipur. The order dated 31.12.2015 passed by the State Government is Annex.7. 3. None appears for the respondents even in second round. 4. This Court has seen reply stating that the order of appointment was uploaded on the official website and since the petitioner has willfully not joined service, therefore, the termination order has rightly been passed. 5. The order dated 31.12.2015 passed by the State Government is Annex.7. 3. None appears for the respondents even in second round. 4. This Court has seen reply stating that the order of appointment was uploaded on the official website and since the petitioner has willfully not joined service, therefore, the termination order has rightly been passed. 5. This Court after perusing record (including the reply) and hearing counsel for the petitioner is of the opinion that once the State Government has itself recorded in its order dated 31.12.2015 (Annex.7) that the order of appointment was not served upon the petitioner, then, it was not open for the Municipal Council to not to allow the petitioner to join her service in pursuance of appointment order dated 3.3.2014 only on account of the fact that the appointment order has been uploaded on the official website. An employee on the post of Safai Karamchari cannot be deprived appointment only on the ground that the appointment order was uploaded at the official website as they would have not have the sufficient education and awareness so as to follow the official website. Normally at all levels where appointment is accorded, the official website can be a valid reason for communication with the employee concern but if a Safai Karamchari was unable to join her services on account of non-communication of the appointment order, then further effort should have been made by the respondents to communicate the order so as to ensure that she should be employed in pursuance of a lawful selection process whereby the petitioner was selected and appointed as Safai Karamchari vide order dated 3.3.2014 at Sr. No.131. 6. In light of the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition is allowed and the order of termination dated 7.7.2014 (Annex.3) issued by the respondent no.3 is quashed and set aside along with the decision on representation 25.8.2015. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to join in pursuance of appointment order dated 3.3.2014 within a period of one month from today.