Naresh Kumar vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Vineet Kothari, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Both the learned Counsel for the parties are in agreement that the controversy involved in these petitions is squarely covered by the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court rendered in SBCWP No. 9173/2009 Sandroop S/o Shri Abu Ram v. The State of Raj. and Ors. and a batch of 59 other writ petitions decided on 19.3.2010 by Hon''ble Mr. Justice Prakash Tatia. The said order is reproduced as under for ready reference.

The learned Counsel for the parties submit that part of Condition No. 4 has been stayed by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court Bench, Jaipur, however, that will not affect the fate of these writ petitions and both the counsel submit that similar directions, subject to the effect of the interim order as passed by the Division Bench of the Jaipur Bench of the High Court, may be passed in these matters also.

In view of the above reasons, all these writ petitions are disposed of in the light of the directions issued in the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2578/09 Devendra Kumar and Ors. v. State and connected matters decided vide judgment dated 15.5.2009 and in the light of the decision given in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4652/09 and connected matters decided on 8.5.2009 with further clarification that the petitioners may satisfy the competent authority, who may be District Education Officer or the Block Elementary Education Officer about the genuineness of the documents as well as continuity of their working in the year 2008-2009.

The directions given in the above writ petitions are incorporated in these writ petitions which are as under:

I. During continuation of the work, as detailed out hereinabove, the invocation of the last extension is arbitrary and illegal; and the consequential automatic termination orders of the petitioners are set aside.

II. The RPSC/DPC selected candidates/employees are still not available and next academic temporary appointments to start; even urgent temporary appointments under Rule 28 of the Rules of 1971 are not possible due to short span of one month and a half left to start with the process of admission and academic session, therefore, as per the aims and objects of the Scheme, respondents are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for continuation in service till regularly selected candidates from RPSC/persons selected and recommended by the DPC for promotion are made available in the light of the above observations;

III. Even in case of appropriate order of continuation in service till regularly selected candidates from RPSC/DPC selected persons are available, the petitioners are not entitled for wages of the vacations, in other words, when the schools are closed.

IV. In case the regularly selected candidates from RPSC/persons selected and recommended by the DPC for promotion are made available, then the respondents can terminate services of the petitioners after preparation of the seniority list on the State level as per their date of appointment and merit assigned to them, by following the principle of ''last come first go'' to the extent of availability of the selected candidates and while doing so, the respondents will keep the interest of the present students and prospective students in view.

It is further made clear that the portion which has been stayed by the Division Bench of this Court shall remain stayed in the light of the order of the Division Bench and that is about the preparation of the seniority list at State level.

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners are also directed to submit the court fees of Rs. 25/- for each of the petitioners in case it is a joint writ petition and certified copy of this order may be issued to the petitioners only subject to payment of this Court fee.

(Prakash Tatia), J.

It is further stated at bar by the learned Counsel for the parties that some of the petitioners approached the Division Bench of this Court against the judgment of learned Single Judge which was rendered prior to the aforesaid quoted order, and one such special appeal being Special Appeal No. 580/2009 in SBCWP No. 4187/2009 came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court recently vide judgment dated 15.02.2010, wherein it has been held as under:

These appeals involving identical issues have been considered together and are taken up for disposal by this common order.

The appellants-petitioners were engaged as "Vidhyarthi Mitra" to undertake teaching work in schools on contract basis under the scheme framed by the State Government; they approached this Court by filing the respective writ petitions stating the grievance, inter alia, that their services would not be continued after summer break. It appears that the engagement of some of incumbents continued during the pendency of the litigation pursuant to the orders passed by the Court. Thereafter, a batch of petitions involving similar issues was decided at Jaipur Bench of this Court on 08.05.2009 with certain directions essentially to the effect that the respondents shall consider the cases of the petitioners for continuation in service until the regular selections were made but with the observations that the petitioners would not be entitled for salary during the period of vacations i.e., when the schools remain closed. Following the said decision, the respective writ petitions as preferred by the present appellants have been decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the same terms and with the same directions. Hence, these appeals.

It is noticed that the intra-court appeals as filed at the Jaipur Bench against the order dated 08.05.2009 have since been considered and dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Saini and 126 Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in 2010 (1) WLC (Raj.) 171.

In the said decision, this Court has clearly held while dismissing the similar nature appeals that the appellants-petitioners are not entitled to claim regularization on the post on which appointments were given on contractual basis; that the appellants-petitioners, not appointed as per the recruitment rules, are not entitled to make a claim for equal pay; and they are not entitled to make a claim of salary for summer vacations.

We do not find any ground to differ from the view already expressed by the co-ordinate Bench.

Accordingly, these appeals stand dismissed. No costs. (Dinesh Maheshwari), J. (A.M. Sapre), J.

Learned Counsel for the parties are in agreement that the present writ petition may be disposed of in the terms of judgments passed by learned Single Judge and affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court.

In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of in the same terms of both the judgments, referred above. Not order as to costs.