Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 412 (RAJ)

Dilip Kumar Darji v. State Of Raj.

2023-02-04

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2023
ORDER : 1. These civil writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “(a) The writ petition be allowed & (b) The respondents be directed to assign proper seniority to the petitioner & (c) Grant all consequential benefits to which the becomes entitled as per his position in the seniority list. (d) Cost of writ be allowed to the petitioner. (d) That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be allowed any other relief which deem fit in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice.” 2. As the record and the narration of the factual matrix, as made in the instant petitions would reveal, the present petitioners, who were initially regularly appointed on the post of Lab Assistant Grade III in the year 1988 and posted at Government Middle School, Chandu Jiorpi, District Banswara, were absorbed as Teacher Grade III at Mardada, District Dungarpur and Bibirani, District Alwar, respectively, in the year 2000, in view of abolition of the post of Lab Assistant Grade-III at their earlier place of posting. Thereafter, in the years 2002 and 2005, respectively, the petitioners were transferred to District Banswara. 3. The claim of the petitioners herein is that they are eligible and suitable for assignment of appropriate seniority in the list of Teachers Grade III from the date of their initial appointment i.e. year 1988, and not from the year 2002 & 2005 (as sought to be done by the respondents), when they joined the duties, after their inter-district transfer. The petitioners are claiming such seniority for the purpose of consideration of their case for promotion to the post of Teacher Grade II. 3.1 Such claim has been made by the petitioners on the strength of a letter dated 23.06.1990 addressed by the Additional Director, Primary & Secondary Education, Government of Rajasthan, to the District Education Officer, Bhilwara (while endorsing a copy thereof to the Deputy Director, Education, Udaipur), wherein it was written that the regularly appointed Lab Assistants be enlisted among the eligible candidates for the necessary promotion. 3.2 Apart from the above, the petitioners averred that many Teachers Grade III have been granted promotion to the post of Teacher Grade II, one of which was one Shri Akshay Kumar, who has acquired the Degree of B.Ed. 3.2 Apart from the above, the petitioners averred that many Teachers Grade III have been granted promotion to the post of Teacher Grade II, one of which was one Shri Akshay Kumar, who has acquired the Degree of B.Ed. in the year 1993, whereas the petitioners were initially inducted into service in the year 1988; though the petitioners have acquired the B.Ed. Degree in the years 1996 and 1993, respectively. 4. Looking into the long drawn pendency of the present petitions, though no one appears on behalf of the petitioners herein today, this Court thought it appropriate to examine the matters without the assistance on behalf of the petitioners, instead of keeping the petitions pending and unnecessarily delay the present adjudicatory pursuit; however, for the purpose of the present adjudication, this Court, while examining the record of the case, heard the arguments of the learned Deputy Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 5. Learned Deputy Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the petitions, submits that so far as the aforementioned letter dated 23.06.1990, which is the main, rather sole basis of the claim of the petitioners, is concerned, the same has not been given effect to and is also not in force now; however, a circular came to be issued on 01.10.2002 by the Directorate, Secondary Education, which, if read in the context of the present petitioners, prescribes that the benefit of seniority is due from the date of joining at the place of their inter district transfer, and not from the date of initial appointment; it is a matter of record that the petitioners joined their services, after inter-district transfer in the years 2002 & 2005, and therefore, their seniority in question has to be reckoned from the said years only. 6. As regards the promotion, given to Shri Akshay Kumar, to the post of Teacher Grade II, reference whereof has been made by petitioners in these petitions, learned Deputy Government Counsel submits that the case of the present petitioners is not at all on a better footing or similar to that of Shri Akshay Kumar, because Shri Akshay Kumar, at the relevant time, was not transferred outside the District, but the present petitioners’ transfer was made inter-district. Therefore, as per learned Deputy Government Counsel, promotion of Shri Akshay Kumar has no relevance in the factual matrix of the present case, and thus, the same is also of no consequence, as far as the case of the present petitioners is concerned. 6.1 Furthermore, learned Deputy Government Counsel submits that Shri Akshay Kumar has also not been impleaded as party respondent in this case, and therefore, as per the settled legal proposition also, in absence of impleadment of Shri Akshay Kumar in the present litigation, the petitioners are not entitled to get any relief in these petitions, while citing, as example, the case of Shri Akshay Kumar. 7. Heard learned Deputy Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents as well as perused the record of the case. 8. At the outset, this Court finds that the stay applications filed by the present petitioners were dismissed by this Hon’ble Court way back in the year 2015. 9. This Court further finds that the aforementioned letter dated 23.06.1990, which is the main baseline for claiming the relief in the present petitions, has not been given effect to and is also not in force now, as informed by the learned Deputy Government Counsel, and therefore, in that eventuality, apart from other factors, including the above-referred circular dated 01.10.2002 issued by the Directorate, Secondary Education, having bearing on the present case, no relief can be granted to the petitioners in these writ petitions. 10. Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed. All pending applications stands disposed of.