Bhupendra Sishodia vs Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology

Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.—The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on 24.09.2014 with the following prayers:-

"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that record of the case may be called for an by an appropriate writ, order or direction:

(i). The respondents may kindly be directed to allow the pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800 with GP 3200/- to the petitioners on completion of 9 years of service under the ACP Scheme and in accordance thereof, the respondents may kindly be directed to allow all service benefits to the petitioner, with all consequential benefits.

(ii) Any other relief to which the petitioners are entitled, may be granted in his favour.

(iii) The writ petition my be allowed with costs."

The learned counsel Mr. Mukesh Vyas appearing for the petitioners submits that similar writ petition namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3868/2014 Gopal Lal Joshi & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. filed before this Court came to be disposed on 01.07.2014 with the following directions:-

"4. In these circumstances, and having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the present writ petition is disposed of with a liberty and direction to the petitioners to make a fresh representation in writing to the respondent No. 2, Director, Elementary Education Department, Bikaner, within a period of one month from today in the light of aforesaid submissions, the said authority i.e. Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner is expected and requested to decide the representation expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month thereafter after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners or their authorized representative. If the petitioners are otherwise eligible to be given the benefit of first selection scale counting the period of 9 years from the date re-appointment/regular appointment of the year 2003 as stated in the Column No. 5 of the order (Annex. 4) dated 12.03.2011, the petitioners may be granted that relief at the end of the respondent No. 2, Director, but if, however, the petitioners are otherwise found to be ineligible and not entitled to the grant of said benefit of first selection scale, the said respondent No. 2, Director, will pass appropriate speaking order giving cogent reasons for the same. It is needles to add here that if the petitioners are still aggrieved by adverse order, if any, passed against them, they will be free to avail the legal remedy in accordance with law.

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith."

The only prayer made on behalf of the petitioners by the learned counsel in the present case is that while disposing the present writ petition, similar directions to the effect that petitioners may be given liberty to file suitable representation before the respondent District Education Officer regarding grant of selection scales to the petitioners and he may be directed to decide the same by passing the appropriate and speaking orders upon the representation of the petitioners.

This course of action was even otherwise open to the petitioner and there was no need to unnecessarily invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court for this purpose.

This Court has inconsistently deprecated this practice of invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court for issuance of such innocuous directions to the respondents, as quoted herein above. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13394/2013 Gopal Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 26.11.2013 this Court has said that the Courts cannot be turned into a post office merely for redirecting the petitioner to file suitable representation and further directed the respondents to decide the same in accordance with law. The Court held as under:-

"9. The Court is thus turned into a post office for passing on the grievances of the petitioner to the respondent/s with a direction to decide the same. Before the respondents are allowed to take a stand in the matter while deciding the representations of the petitioners and candidates, the Court is called upon to pass such innocuous directions for deciding representation, which in a large number of cases has not only resulted in uncontrollable multiplicity of litigation, but has invited a flood of litigation at a premature stage with a possibility of conflicting orders by different benches. While the other constitutional and state functionaries in normal course can very well be expected to deal with all or any of such grievances or representations at their own end in appropriate manner, the writ jurisdiction need not be invoked in such cases at least till a stand in the matter is taken in the orders passed in writing by the competent authority of the respondent bodies like RPSC or the State Government Departments for testing the correctness or legality of such orders passed by them.

Taking the present case as an illustrative one, to put a check and restraint on such premature and casual writ petitions, this Court is inclined to impose costs on the petitioners so that even for their grievance, which could be attended to or redressed by the respondent-RPSC itself, the petitioners have filed this writ petition without any basis whatsoever. This Court, in writ jurisdiction, is not expected to hold an enquiry into each and every selection process or examination as experts or the recruitment agency itself and it is only for the competent authorities of the respondents, to decide such representations, when filed, with appropriate averments and evidence with such representation/s.

This Court taking note of such premature, frivolous and casual writ petitions, is pained, to say the least, that in such circumstances, writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked prematurely and it is for such petitioners and candidates to definitely first approach the respondents authorities of RPSC or other departments of the State Government, or the Central Government, as the case may be, and allow them sufficient and reasonable time to decide such representation, approach personally, if necessary, such authorities, adduce evidence, and then once such appropriate speaking orders are passed by the competent authorities of the respondents/departments, the Court can examine the correctness, legality, genuineness, rationale and reasonableness of such orders, which are passed by the competent authorities.

With pain and remorse at heart, while dismissing such writ petition, ill advised as they were when drafted and filed through legally trained counsel; this Court dismisses this writ petition with cost of Rs. 5000/-, to be deposited by these two petitioners with the Legal Aid Committee of this Court within a period of two weeks from today. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith."

Accordingly and in view of the above, this writ petition is also dismissed as premature and the petitioners may take their aforesaid recourse before the Departmental Authorities in accordance with law. No costs.

A copy of this order be sent to the respondents forthwith.