Samay Singh Gurjar and Others vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Prakash Tatia, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners.

The process for giving appointment to the post of Teacher Grade-III was initiated as back as in the year 1998 by issuing notification No. 1/98. The matter came up before the Court as several writ petitions were filed and one of which decided by the Hon''ble Apex Court is Kailash Chand Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, which was decided in the year 2002 wherein it has been observed as under:

The stand in the counter-affidavit (extracted supra) is that "each zone has its distinct language". If that is correct, the Zila Parishad should have mentioned in the notification that the candidates should know particular language to become eligible for consideration. We are inclined to think that reference has been made in the counter to ''language'' instead of ''dialect'' rather inadvertently. As seen from the previous sentence, the words ''dialect'' and ''language'' are used as interchangeable expressions, without perhaps understanding the distinction between the two. We, therefore, take it hat what is meant to be conveyed in the counter is that each Zone has a distinct dialect or vernacular and therefore, local candidates of the district would be in a better position to teach and interact with the students. In such a case, the State Government should have identified the zones in which vernacular dis-similarities exist and the speech and dialect vary. That could only be done on the basis of scientific study and collection of relevant data. It is nobody''s case that such an exercise was done. In any case, if these differences exist zone-wise or region-wise, there could possibly be no justification for giving weightage to the candidates on the basis of residence in a district. The candidates belongs to that zone, irrespective of the fact whether they belong to x, y, or z district of the zone could very well be familiar with allegedly different dialect peculiar to that zone. The argument further breaks down, if tested from the standpoint of award of bonus marks to the rural that candidates who have settled down in the towns will not be familiar with the dialect of that district ? Can we reasonably proceed on the assumption that rural area candidates are more familiar with the dialect of the district rather than town area candidates of the same district ? The answer to both the questions in our view cannot but be in the negative. To prefer the educated people residing in villages over those residing in towns big or small of the same district, on the mere supposition that the former (rural candidates) will be able to teach the rural students better would only amount to creating an artificial distinction having no legitimate connection to the object sought to be achieved. It would then be a case of discrimination based primarily on residence which is prescribed by Article 16(2).

Following the decision of Kailash Chand Sharma (supra), the Single Bench of this Court (Jaipur Bench) in SBCWP No. 7962/2002 (Dinesh Kumar Kumawat v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.) while deciding 69 writ petitions, permitted all the aspirants obviously the petitioners to submit representation before the Director, Panchayati Raj Department who was directed to decide such representations within 30 days and that too after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. This Court directed to pass a reasoned order.

The petitioners'' contention is that following the directions given in SBCWP No. 7962/2002 and connected writ petitions, which were preferred by the aspirants, the State decided to give opportunity of hearing to the parties on their representations and the petitioners placed on record copy of interview call letter dated 6.2.2003 on record as Annex. 4. The process which was started as back as in the year 1998, that too for giving appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III, appears to have yet not completed which is clear from the fact that according to the petitioners, even appointment orders are being issued in the year 2009. The petitioners have placed on record copy of one such order dated 4.5.2009 as Annex. 12. The petitioners also placed on record various orders passed wherein directions were issued time to time to review the appointments and grant the relief in consonance to the order passed by the Hon''ble Apex Court and consequential order passed by this Court. Even a committee was constituted by the State Government in the year 2004 by order dated 28.2.2004 (Annex.4). The present petitioners submit that their cases yet have not been rejected rather say, according to them, they have yet not been considered. The present writ petition has been filed by 12 persons though legal notice was given by 37 persons who may be aspirants for the post of Teacher Grade-III for which advertisement was issued 11 years ago. It appears that, when the dispute was raised for appointment to the post of Teacher Grade-III, the matter has been decided upto Hon''ble Apex Court in the year 2002 vide judgment delivered in the case of Kailash Chand Sharma (supra) yet the candidates if are eligible to the said post are being not given appointment upto the year 2009 (as is apparent from the last order dated 4.5.2009 - Annex. 12). How the matter of giving appointment can be dragged to such a long period ?

Learned Counsel for the petitioners has also shown the order of Division Bench of this Court (Jaipur Bench) in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 448/2005 (Anil Kumar Sharma v. Director, Gramin Vikas & Panchayati Raj and Anr.) wherein again directions were issued by this Court.

In sum and substance, even when the dispute stands conclusively settled by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the matter of appointment which is an issue of livelihood of several persons, the process of giving appointment is going on for 7 years. If these people are yet unemployed, under what conditions, they may be surviving is a matter of great concern for the Court, may it not of concern for the State Government, a welfare State Government.

By this time, the State Government must have come to know about the fact that unless hundreds and thousands of writ petitions are filed, the State Government will not try to appear and file replies for getting the matter decided expeditiously burdening the Courts. For that purpose, examples of litigation in the category of Vidhyarthi Mitras, Prabodhaks, etc. are there. If the Court decides the matters, they are not implemented till contempt notices are not served.

This Court in the case of Smt. Kiran Malviya v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5445/2004 decided on 7.9.2005 clearly observed that now it is not time for even thinking for the litigation management but it is time to think for case management by the biggest litigant, the State Government. This Court expect to know what happened after the observations made in the said case and what decisions were taken by the State Government so as to avoid litigation or if an issue is raised in a few writ petitions and there is likelihood of filing of hundreds and thousands petitions, whether the authorities have developed any mechanism to obtain a decision on such issues so as to lessen burden of poor public as yet on several occasions, several orders came before this Court directing the officers to grant relief to similarly situated persons only if will obtain the same judgment from the court when court has already decided the issue finally. In the aforesaid case of Smt. Kiran Malviya (supra), this Court observed as under:

...This Court is concerned only to the facts which affects the administration of justice and increases frivolous and unnecessary litigation because of inaction of the Government Departments resulting into causing delay in imparting justice to the bona-fide litigants. Many a times when question about the working of the government officer and departments comes up, a plea is taken that because of the financial crisis, the government could not do anything whereas in the matter of management of affairs of the departments, the State is suffering more because of mismanagement, rather because of the financial difficulties. Not only this but by proper case management the State can save and recover more revenue. Unless proper management is worked out for dealing the cases in the courts, by changing the advocates, no purpose would be served. It is for the Government to look into the matter and examine how they can have a track for conducting the cases properly.

Much can be said but it is better to say less because of the fact that still the court has faith that the Government will examine the matter to find out how they can develop a case management system and improve their working in assisting the courts....

Before parting with I would like to mention a few facts which recently are stated in parliament in debate on 24 August, 2005 by the Hon''ble Law Minister. Hon''ble Law Minister said that our Supreme Court is deciding more cases than it ought to decide. Our Supreme Court decided thousands and lakhs of cases. So, Courts are doing very well. We have neglected this institution. I may add, In Rajasthan hundreds of cases may be more than 300 are listed every day, before every Single Bench. If state Government, party in majority of case before the high court, gives mere reasonably due care to their cases, the Rajasthan High Court may not in short time clear total backlog but at least can reduce the backlog substantially. The beneficiary is not judiciary alone but more beneficiaries will be State and most will be public at large.

Issue notice to the respondents.

Issue notice also to the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan the Principal Secretary, Home Affairs, Government of Rajasthan and the Law Secretary, Government of Rajasthan who may look into the matters where the question of livelihood of the persons is involved, the manner in which the State Authorities are functioning denying even appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III for such a long period if any of the persons like the persons who have been given appointment in the year 2009 are eligible to appointment and have been denied appointment for no fault of theirs.

Rule is made returnable on 28.10.2009. Notices for all the respondents including the above for all the respondents including the above authorities be filed in two sets in three days. On filing, one set be sent by speed post for service upon the respondents including the above authorities.