Gheesalal and Another vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J.—This case pertains to appointment on the post of Prabodhak. Petitioners were denied appointment on the said post for want of five years continuous experience. Learned counsel submits that if the period of working of the petitioners in Non-Government aided educational institution and private government recognised educational institution is taken into consideration then petitioners have completed five years of service/experience so as to become entitled for the post of Prabodhak. Reference of the judgment in the case of "Beeram Ram Choudhary vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.", SB Civil Writ Petition No. 6273/2008, decided on 15.10.2008 by Principal Seat, Jodhpur has been given, wherein, a direction was issued to count length of service after inclusion of the period of summer break. A prayer is accordingly made to consider case of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Prabodhak having five years required experience.

Learned counsel for respondents submits that petitioner No. 1 has not been given artificial break for summer vacation rather he had taken employment in different institutions from time to time. The gap in between cannot be said to be artificial summer break, more so when employment was taken by the petitioner at his own.

She further submits that petitioner No. 2 has produced certificate at annexure-4. It does not indicate five years experience because employment is said to be from the month of June, 2003 till 10.6.2008. The date of appointment in the month of June, 2003 has not been indicated to find out as to whether he has completed five years of service as on 10.6.2008. The District Education Officer (Secondary-I), Education Department, Sikar has counter signed the above certificate of experience for the period from 1.7.2003 to 31.5.2008. If petitioner was engaged after 10.6.2003, then he will not complete five years of experience as on 10.6.2008. Accordingly, respondents have rightly rendered both the petitioners ineligible for the post in question.

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The only dispute is as to whether petitioners are in possession of required five years experience so as to become eligible for appointment to the post of Prabodhak? Perusal of annexure-2 and 3 in reference to petitioner No. 1 shows that he remained under employment in different institutions and the gap in between cannot be said to be artificial break due to summer vacation. In fact, it could have been said to be artificial break, if petitioner continued in one and the same school and has not given certificate of working/experience for summer break. In the background aforesaid, petitioner No. 1 has wrongly treated it to be a case of break in service due to summer vacation. In fact, after doing work in Saraswati Bal Vidya Mandir since 1.7.2002 to 15.5.2003, he had changed his employment and worked with another school since 1.7.2003 to 15.5.2008 thus it is a case of change of employment and not of artificial break in summer vacation.

The petitioner No. 2 has produced annexure-4 which indicates his employment from June, 2003 to 10.6.2008. This is obviously not of five years of service experience as required for appointment to the post of Prabodhak because date of appointment is not given. The petitioner was required to produce certificate of experience to indicate clear five years'' experience without any ambiguity, however, certificate at annexure-4 does not clarify the aforesaid. This is more so when the District Education Officer has counter signed the same for the period since 1.7.2003 to 31.5.2008. In view of the discussion made above, I do not find that a case is made out to issue directions as prayed for in the writ petition. The writ petition is found to be devoid of merit, hence, it is dismissed.