Priyanka vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:24137)

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Priyanka vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:24137) on 27 May, 2024

[2024:RJ-JD:24137]



      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                            JODHPUR
             S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8913/2021
Priyanka D/o Shri Parma Nand, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Ghamandia, Tehsil- Suratgarh, Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.        State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Education
          Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
2.        The    Director,  Secondary                 Education       Department
          Rajasthan Bikaner.
3.        Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jodhpur.
4.        District Education Officer Secondary Education, Jodhpur
          (Raj.)
5.        Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer
          (Raj.)
                                                                  ----Respondents


 For Petitioner(s)           :    None Present
 For Respondent(s)           :    Mr. Sarvan Kumar


               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Judgment (Oral) 27/05/2024

1. Petitioner herein, inter alia, is seeking directions to the respondents to regularize her services from the date of entitlement, i.e., 20.04.2018, with all consequential benefits along with interest.

2. Briefly speaking, the relevant facts as pleaded are that the respondent RPSC issued an advertisement for the post of Senior Teacher, Social Science. The petitioner belongs to the OBC (Female) category and was selected in the examination. 2.1. By letter dated 27.09.2018, the petitioner was allotted the Churu Division. Subsequently, the respondent Deputy Director issued an appointment order dated 20.04.2018 (Annex.3) to the (Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:31:47 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:24137] (2 of 4) [CW-8913/2021] petitioner, posting her as Senior Teacher, Social Science at GUPS, Bhinwsar, PS Sardarshahar, District Churu. 2.2. The petitioner joined her duty, and the joining report dated 21.04.2015 is marked as Annexure-4.

2.3. The respondent reshuffled the result and allotted districts to candidates. The respondents allotted Jodhpur Division to the petitioner by order dated 26.07.2020, with a joining order dated 30.07.2020.

2.4. The probation period of the petitioner got over on 21.04.2020, and the respondent confirmed the petitioner's services by order dated 29.06.2020. However, same withdrawn the next day, i.e., 30.06.2020 (Annexure-6). 2.5. The petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents, praying for confirmation of service and pay fixation, but the respondents did not pay any heed to the representation (Annex.7).

2.6. The respondents have discriminated against the petitioner compared to other similarly situated candidates. The respondents accorded pay fixation to other candidates at Sr. No.6 and 20 by orders dated 13.07.2020 and 28.07.2020 (Annex.8), but did not do the same for the petitioner. Hence, this petition.

3. The defense taken in the reply is that by Annex.6, it is evident that the order relating to the completion of the probation period by the petitioner was withdrawn. By Annex.7, the petitioner claims that after the cancellation of her selection, she remained in service on account of an ad-interim order of the Court. However, no such ad-interim order has been produced on record by the petitioner, (Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:31:47 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:24137] (3 of 4) [CW-8913/2021] nor are the particulars of the writ petition mentioned in the representation (Annex.7). Hence, the writ petition deserves dismissal.

4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions and gone through the case file.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the respondents and after perusal of the court file, it transpires that the break in the service of the petitioner is not attributable to her, as it resulted from circumstances arising out of the revision of the selection process results. In 2018, pursuant to the revised result, she was not found in the merit list. However, subsequently, another revision of the result took place in 2020, and as luck would have it, this time the petitioner found her name in the list of successful candidates and was taken back into service.

6. In the peculiar premise, the petitioner cannot be put to double jeopardy, as she had to remain out of a job between the first revision of the result and the second revision for no fault of hers. When she was taken back, she was not given the benefit of confirmation in service from the initial date of appointment, unlike her counterparts who remained on the list of successful candidates in both the first and second revisions of the result.

7. Resultantly, the claim of the petitioner to accord her the benefit of confirmation in service has to be allowed with effect from 24.04.2018, the date of her initial appointment before the pre- revised result.

(Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:31:47 PM)

[2024:RJ-JD:24137] (4 of 4) [CW-8913/2021]

8. It is, however, made clear that the petitioner shall be entitled only to the notional benefits of seniority etc. and for the period she did not serve, she is not entitled to any financial benefits.

9. With these observations, petition is disposed of.

10. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.

(ARUN MONGA),J 138-AnilKC/-

Whether Fit for Reporting - Yes / No (Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:31:47 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)