Vikram Singh vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 18171 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15854/2021

Vikram Singh S/o Shri Fateh Singh, aged about 28 Years, R/o Alayla, Mundriabara, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

4. The Chief Executive Officer Zila Parishad Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

5. The Chief Executive Officer Zila Parishad Barmer, District Barmer, Rajasthan.

6. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Elementary Education Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

7. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Elementary Education Barmer, District Barmer, Rajasthan.

8. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

9. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Paylakallan, District Barmer, Rajasthan.

10. The Panchayat Elementary Education Officer/PEEO, Government Senior Secondary School, Dhandhusar, Panchayat Samiti Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

11. The Headmaster, Government Upper Primary School, Suraniyon Ki Dhani, Darguda, Gram Panchayat Kadanadi, Panchayat Samiti Payla Kallan, District Barmer, Rajasthan.

                                                                        ----Respondents




                                           (2 of 5)                [CW-15854/2021]




For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Kailash Jangid.
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG with
                                  Mr. Deepak Chandak.



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

                                      Order

02/12/2021

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging

the validity of the order dated 28.08.2021 (Annex.8) to the extent

of Condition No.4 and denial of respondents to relieve the

petitioner from earlier place of posting for joining at new posting

place and for not providing service benefits.

It is, inter alia, indicated in the petition that the petitioner

had applied for the post of Teacher Grade-III pursuant to

Advertisement dated 06.07.2016 (Annex.1), however, the

petitioner was not selected. Thereafter, pursuant to Advertisement

dated 31.07.2018 (Annex.3) the petitioner again applied and was

selected and joined on 28.09.2018. Subsequent thereto, the wait

list of the Recruitment-2016 was operated, wherein the petitioner

got selected by order dated 21.09.2021 (Annex.5) and was

allotted District Barmer. Thereafter, appointment order dated

28.10.2021 (Annex.6) according posting to the petitioner was also

issued.

The petitioner sought his relieving from District

Hanumangarh for joining pursuant to order of appointment

pertaining to Recruitment-2016, however, as the respondents had

issued order dated 28.08.2021 (Annex.8) containing stipulation

that those selected in Recruitment-2018, if join pursuant to

Recruitment-2016, they would not be entitled to any service

(3 of 5) [CW-15854/2021]

benefits, which restricted the petitioner's relieving from

Hanumangarh.

Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the

issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by

judgment in Dhanraj Meena vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. :

SBCWP No.12846/2017 decided on 15.01.2018.

Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the

respondents made submissions that the stipulation in the

instructions are very specific indicating that the petitioner would

not be entitled to any benefit and as such, the petitioner is not

entitled for any relief from the Court.

Judgment in the case of Dhanraj Meena (supra) was sought

to be distinguished by indicating that in the case of Dhanraj Meena

(supra), the matter pertain to those selected in Recruitment-2013,

once they were already working based on Recruitment-2012, relief

was granted to them, however, as in the present case, the position

is reverse wherein the petitioner is working having been recruited

under the Recruitment-2018 and is seeking joining pursuant to

Recruitment-2016, the judgment relied upon by the counsel for

the petitioner, has no application to the instant case.

I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for

the parties and have perused the material available on record.

In the case of Dhanraj Meena (supra), in similar nature

circumstance, wherein those again selected in subsequent

recruitment sought relief, this Court referring to provisions of Rule

24 and 26 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 ('Rules') came to

the following conclusion: -

"In view of the specific provision i.e. second proviso to Rule 24 of RSR as well as the judgment of

(4 of 5) [CW-15854/2021]

this Court in the case of Praveen Kumar Yadav (supra) and Chandra Kala Saini (supra), the stand taken by the respondents in orders dated 2.9.2015 (Annex.R/1) and 4.12.2017 (Annex.R/2), is without any basis.

In view thereof, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed, as the petitioners have already been relieved pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court, the said interim orders passed by this Court directing to relieve the petitioners are made absolute.

It is further directed that the respondents while dealing with the cases of the petitioners pertaining to their pay fixation etc. would follow the provisions of Rules 24 and 26 of the RSR as per law.

In cases where the petitioners have been relieved provisionally under the directions of this Court, the Authorities would pass appropriate orders pertaining to relieving of the petitioners alongwith their last pay certificate (L.P.C.), where they were serving earlier."

The distinction sought to be made only on account of the fact

that in the case of Dhanraj Meena (supra), the same pertained to

Recruitment-2012 and the petitioners therein, were recruited in

the Recruitment-2013 and here the position is reverse, wherein

the petitioner is working pursuant to Recruitment-2018 and is

seeking relieving for joining pursuant to Recruitment-2016, has no

basis, as the provisions of Rule 26 of the Rules do not envisage

such a situation, rather it only provides that, 'a Government

servant already serving in one service, cadre of department who is

appointed to another service, cadre or department by direct

recruitment ....', is entitled for certain benefits.

In view of above, the distinction sought to be pointed out

cannot be countenanced.

Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is

allowed. The respondents are directed to relieve the petitioner

from Hanumangarh to join at Barmer pursuant to order of

(5 of 5) [CW-15854/2021]

appointment dated 21.09.2021 and posting order dated

28.10.2021. The petitioner would be entitled to further relief as

granted in the case of Dhanraj Meena (supra).

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 35-DJ/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)