Virendra Singh @ Yeswanth kumar vs State of Rajasthan & Ors

1 Leave granted.

2 The learned Single Judge in the original order dated 23 July 2013 relied on the decision of this Court in Sunita Sharma v State of Rajasthan JT 2001 (10) SC 178. On the basis of the decision of this Court, the learned Single Judge issued the following directions:

"The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.III and if found suitable grant him appointment by treating the qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational) with Bridge Course equivalent to Senior Secondary (Academic). The petitioner shall be entitled for notional benefits from the date his immediate junior is granted such benefit."

3 The learned Single Judge also relied on the other decisions of the High Court in Deep Chand v State of Rajasthan & Ors.2003 (1) WLC (Raj.) 187 and Smt. Suman v State & Anr.S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1396/1998 decided on 4 August 2006

4 Subsequently, an application for clarification was moved before the learned Single Judge by the appellant on 14 June 2016 on which a clarificatory order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 7 September 2016. The State of Rajasthan filed a Special Appeal DB Special Appeal Writ No 1435 of 2017 which was dismissed by the Division Bench on 19 January 2018, though with the following directions:

"Consequently, the instant special appeal being devoid of merit, accordingly stands dismissed. Since the respondent is fighting for his legitimate cause for almost 21 years, we consider it appropriate to direct the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Barmer to pass appropriate orders of his appointment as Teacher Gr.III within a period of thirty days from today on the basis of the marks obtained by him in the Senior Secondary examination subject to the condition that his appointment shall be treated as fresh appointment and he will not have any claim as to the seniority or other benefits. No costs."

5 The review petitions were filed both by the State of Rajasthan and the respondent. The review petition filed by the State has been allowed by the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 31 July 2018. The High Court on a careful evaluation has come to the conclusion that the Senior Secondary (Vocational) is not equivalent to Senior Secondary (Academic) and, in coming to the conclusion, has relied on the decisions of the High Court in Rajpal Singh & Ors v Director, Gramin Vikas & Panchayati Raj Vibhag, Jaipur & Ors DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No 857 of 1997 and State of Rajasthan & Anr. v Mukesh Kumar Jhajharia & Anr RLW 1999 (2) Raj. 1305.

6 We find no reason to differ with the view which has been taken by the High Court. The decision of this Court in Sunita Sharma (supra), which was relied on by the learned Single Judge in the original order dated 23 July 2013, would not be of any assistance to the case of the respondent for the simple reason that in paragraph 8 of the judgment, this Court held that:

"It is made clear that we have passed this order in the peculiar circumstances arising in these appeals and the same shall not be treated as a precedent."

7 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, however, submitted that the Special Appeal before the High Court was filed by the State only against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 7 September 2016 which was by way of a clarification of the earlier order dated 23 July 2013. Hence, it was urged that the review which was sought of the Special Appeal dated 19 January 2018 will not, in consequence, disturb the original judgment of the learned Single Judge.

8 This submission has been dealt with by the Division Bench of the High Court. Since the Division Bench of the High Court had set the controversy at rest in the other two decisions, which have been noted earlier, the judgment dated 19 January 2018 had to be set to rest by bringing the position in alignment with the view which has already been taken by the High Court.

9 In this view of the matter, we see no merit in the present appeals. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.