Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1785 (RAJ)

Satyapal Sagar v. State of Rajasthan

2018-08-24

MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI

body2018
JUDGMENT Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J. - Heard on the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. There is delay of 326 days in filing of the review petition. 2. It is stated that a fresh writ petition was filed by the petitioner but was then withdrawn with liberty to file a review petition. The petitioner then preferred this review petition. The delay has been caused for the reasons given above thus may be condoned. 3. Learned counsel for respondents has opposed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the parties and find that delay has been properly explained by the petitioner. The petitioner was bona fidely pursuing remedy by maintaining a fresh writ petition. It was then withdrawn with liberty to file a review petition. In view of the above, delay in filing the review petition is condoned. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed. 5. Heard on the review petition. 6. It is a case where the petitioner was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk on compassionate ground. It was on a condition to pass typing test within the period given in the order as well as the rules. The petitioner failed to qualify the typing test even after a notice served on him. The services of the petitioner were accordingly terminated. The order of termination was challenged in the writ petition. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to appoint the petitioner on the post of Class IV. 7. This review petition was filed to seek a liberty to pass the typing test as sufficient opportunities were not given to the petitioner to do so. During pendency of the review petition, the petitioner passed the typing test. A prayer is accordingly made to review the order. 8. Learned counsel for respondents has opposed the review petition. He submits that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of LDC. When he failed to qualify the typing test, his services were terminated. It is, however, admitted that petitioner has now qualified the typing test. 9. I have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. He submits that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of LDC. When he failed to qualify the typing test, his services were terminated. It is, however, admitted that petitioner has now qualified the typing test. 9. I have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. The writ petition preferred by the petitioner was disposed of by this court with a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Class IV. It is looking to the fact that petitioner was, otherwise, eligible for appointment on the post of Class IV on compassionate ground. In compliance of the order of this court, the petitioner was allowed to continue on the post of Class IV. The petitioner, however, preferred a review petition. During pendency of the review petition, the petitioner qualified the typing test and, accordingly, a prayer is made to allow him to continue on the post of LDC. It is mainly on the ground that many similarly placed employees were continued without even subjecting them to qualify the typing test. They were also appointed on compassionate basis. 11. The petitioner was subjected to termination of service in discriminatory manner. Now, he has qualified the typing test. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that order passed in the writ petition needs to be reviewed. It is not only taking into consideration that petitioner has qualified the typing test but for the reason that many candidates, who have failed to qualify the typing test within the time frame given under the rules, have been continued by the respondents. They have thus caused discrimination between similarly placed employees. 12. Accordingly, this review petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to continue the petitioner on the post of LDC. He would not, however, be entitled to difference of wages of the post of Class IV and LDC for the intervening period when he did not discharge duties on the post of LDC. The petitioner would, however, be entitled to continuity in service and fixation on notional basis after considering the intervening period towards the post of LDC and accordingly, the fixation of salary would be made. The compliance of this order would be made within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.