Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 569 (RAJ)

Rajesh Son of Shri Ramjilal v. State of Rajasthan

2025-03-04

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

body2025
ORDER : ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- “It is therefore, most humble and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed: and by an appropriate writ, order or direction i. The record of the case may kindly be called for; ii. The respondent No. 03 may kindly be directed to relieve the petitioner from the post of Constable to join on the post of Computer without insisting him for payment of refund of training expenses/salary. iii. The by order or direction this Hon'ble Court may awarded all the service benefits to the petitioner. iv. The petitioner may be granted for all consequential benefits: v. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which the facts and circumstances of the case warrants be issued and; vi. Costs of the writ petition be allowed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction against the respondents to relieve him from the post of Constable to join on the post of Computer without insisting him for refund the payment of training expenses/salary. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable on 03.02.2023 and he has completed two years probation period, thereafter his services were confirmed by the respondents vide order dated 27.02.2025. Counsel submits that in the meantime, the petitioner has been selected for appointment on the post of Computer and he is suppose to join the new assignment/assessment after he is relieved from the present department. Counsel submits that an application has been submitted by the petitioner for his relieving but he has not been allowed to relieve the present department to join the post of Computer, therefore appropriate direction be issued to the respondents. 4. Counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that large expenses have incurred in the training of the petitioner during his probation period, hence under these circumstances, the petitioner is required to deposit the training expenses. Counsel submits that the controversy involved in this petition has already been set at rest by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Arun Choudhary and Ors. Vs. State and Ors. Counsel submits that the controversy involved in this petition has already been set at rest by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Arun Choudhary and Ors. Vs. State and Ors. while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5255/2013 on 08.09.2020 and the same view has been followed subsequently again in the case of Vinod Kumar Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9304/2021 on 10.05.2023. Counsel submits that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has directed the authorities concerned to re-determine the amount of training expenses incurred upon the petitioner and the respondents are restrained from recovering the salary drawn from those persons. Counsel submits that instant petition be disposed of in the light of orders passed in the cases of Arun Choudhary (Supra) and Vinod Kumar Meena (Supra) 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable and he underwent training during the probation period and after completion of his probation, his services have been confirmed on 27.02.2025. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner participated in the process of selection for appointment on the post of Computer and thereafter he has been selected. 7. Now the question which remains for consideration before this Court is that whether the petitioner can be allowed to be relieved by the respondents without recovering the amount of expenses incurred on the training of the petitioner and whether the respondents can recover the salary paid to the petitioner during the intervening period. 8. The issue involved in this petition has already been set at rest by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of Arun Choudhary (Supra) and it has been observed and held as under:- “Having regard to the facts aforesaid especially the latest judgment of the coordinate bench rendered at Principal Seat in Bhanwar Lal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.,S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8934/2013 decided on 28.1.2014, the present petitions deserve to be disposed of with direction that if the petitioners have already deposited the amount of training expenses as per the circular of the Director General of Police dated 30.9.2008, the respondent Education - Department shall release their salary. The fact about the deposit of the training expenses shall be verified by the concerned Superintendent of Police on the petitioners' approaching him along with copy of this order, who shall have the training expenses computed as per the aforesaid circular dated 30.9.2008. On NOC being issued by him, the Education Department shall release the salary of the petitioners. It is further directed that if any amount in excess is found to have been deposited by the petitioners or recovered from them under the head of training expenses, the same is liable to be refunded to the petitioners within two months. If the salary for the earlier period has been with held by the respondents, it shall be released within two months too.” 9. The view taken in the case of Arun Choudhary (Supra) has been again reiterated by this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Meena (Supra) wherein the following order has been passed in Para 12 to 14 which reads as under:- 12. The respondents are directed to determine the amount of training expenses incurred upon the petitioner during such course within a period of four weeks from today and intimate the petitioner. 13. On receipt of the determination of the amount made by the respondents, the petitioner shall be allowed three months’ time to deposit the same. 14. On deposition of the amount of training expenses by the petitioner, the respondent-Department shall issue a ‘No Objection Certificate’ to the petitioner.” 10. It is worthy to note here that several orders were passed by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in the light of the orders/directions issued in the case of Arun Choudhary (Supra) and Vinod Kumar Meena (Supra) and the aforesaid orders were assailed before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Meena and Anr. by way of filing D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 61/2024 but the said appeal preferred by the State has been dismissed and the view taken by the Single Bench has been upheld. 11. Vs. Vinod Kumar Meena and Anr. by way of filing D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 61/2024 but the said appeal preferred by the State has been dismissed and the view taken by the Single Bench has been upheld. 11. Considering the above proposition of law as propounded in the above referred judgments, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following directions, terms and conditions:- (i) The respondents are directed to determine the amount of training expenses incurred upon the petitioner during course of his employment within a period of four weeks from today and intimate the petitioner about the same. (ii) The respondents are restrained to recover the salary drawn by the petitioner during the course of his employment with the respondent-Department. (iii) On receipt of the determination of the amount made by the respondents, the petitioner shall be allowed one month time to deposit the same. (iv) On deposition of the amount of training expenses by the petitioner, the respondent-Department shall issue a ‘No Objection Certificate’ to the petitioner. (v) For the time being, the petitioner be permitted to join the post of Computer forthwith, subject to the condition that he would deposit the training expenses as per the directions, terms and conditions issued by this Court within the time fixed. (vi) In case, the petitioner fails to deposit the above training charges within the above stipulated time, the respondents would be free to recall the petitioner to join the present parent department.