Tara Chand and Others vs State of Rajasthan and Others

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

The contention of the petitioners is that they were though appointed under the Work Charge Rules and then looking to the need as well as hardship of the employees, a notification was issued on 21.12.1989 which is as under:

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in these rules, persons employed on work-charged basis in Public Work Department/Irrigation (Indira Gandhi Nahar Board (including Indira Gandhi Nahar Board-Command Area Development) Department/Public Health Engineering Department, Ayurved Department and have put in at least two years continuous service as on 1.4.88 and have passed High School/or Secondary/Praveshika Examination of Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan or of a Board recognised by the Government may be absorbed once only on the post of L.D.C. on regular basis against the vacant posts of L.D.C. in their respective department to the extent of 50% of the total vacant posts of L.D.C. on 1st April, 1988 after adjudging their suitability by the Committee consisting of the following:

(1) Head of the Department or his nominee not below the rank of Additional Chief Engineer/Addl. Head of the Department.

(2) One Senior Officer not below the rank of Superintending Engineer nominated by the Chief Engineer.

(3) Chief Accounts Officer/Senior Accounts Officer of the concerned department.

The work-charged employees who are appointed as L.D.C. shall be made regular after passing the typing test to be held by the Appointing Authority at a speed prescribed in these rules within the period of one year from the date of such appointment.

According to the petitioners, they should have been screened as they were eligible for consideration and thereafter they should have been given appointment on the post of LDC. According to the petitioners, from the initial date of appointment, they are working as LDC inspite of the fact that they were given appointment under the Work Charge Rules only and they were given designation of Beldar. The petitioners'' contention is that in view of the notification dated 21.12.1989, several work charge employees who were also appointed like the petitioners were given appointment after screening from time to time. The petitioners have placed on record a copy of the order dated 21.1.2006 which has been passed in pursuance of the order passed in SBCWP No. 2082/1994 (Mool Shanker Bissa v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.) decided on 23.11.2004 wherein it was found that said Mool Shanker Bissa was working as work charge employee but from the time of his appointment, he was working as Pump Driver-II. He had requisite educational qualifications and the High Court directed to consider his case for absorption as LDC with effect from 1.4.88 or thereafter obviously from the date when the vacancy in terms of the government circular came into force. Said Mool Shanker was given appointment on the post of LDC subject to passing of type test.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the above reason, the petitioners'' case should have been considered by the respondents for giving appointment to the post of LDC in time but even after so many years, they have not considered the cases of the petitioners. It is submitted that the process of screening is going on, which is clear from another document i.e. order dated 15.4.2007 (Annex.10) wherein it is mentioned that the screening committee meeting was convened and the candidates were screened and were given appointment on the post of Store Munshi.

The respondents submitted reply to the writ petition and the plea taken by the petitioners in para 13(f) has not been contested by them rather it has been admitted specifically by them in reply to para 13(f) that the notification was issued on 21.12.1989 obviously for giving appointment on the post of LDC after screening.

It appears that the requirement under the notification dated 21.12.1989 provides that the candidate mush have put at least 2 years continuous service as on 1.4.88. Therefore, the candidates who have put in service of 2 years by 1.4.88, their candidature was required to be considered after 21.12.89 and the process is yet going on as is apparent from the documents referred above.

In view of the above reasons, this writ petition deserves to be allowed, hence, allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with the notification dated 21.12.1989 after taking into account all the facts which have been relied upon by the petitioners like one communication (Annex. 5) signed by the officer of the respondent department certifying that the persons named in the list are working as ministerial staff since their initial date of appointment and their work is satisfactory and no departmental enquiry is pending against them. Each case is required to be decided by the respondents carefully and thereafter appropriate order may be passed within a period of three months from today.