Rajasthan High Court

Shiv Nath Jagarwal And Ors vs State Personnel Departmentors on 20 December, 2021

Bench: Rekha Borana

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                      BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20521/2013

 1. Shiv Nath Jagarwal S/o Sh. Devi Sahal, aged about 43 years,
 R/o Village-Tholai, Jamwa Ramgarh, District-Jaipur
 2. Jagannath Prasad S/o Late Sh. Pooran Mal Raigar, aged about
 45 years R/o Radhe Kishanpura Via Jahota Tehsil Amer, District-
 Jaipur
 3. Babulal Bunkar S/o Sh. Prabhu Dayal, aged about 42 years,
 R/o Village-Rundal, Tehsil-Amer, District- Jaipur
 4. Babulal Bunkar S/o Narhuram, aged 51 years, R/o VPO
 Jahota, tehsil Amer, Distt Jaipur (Raj)
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
 1.   State   of   Rajasthan       through       Secretary,       Department   of
 Personnel (A-Group-II), Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Medical, Health and
 Family Welfare, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
 3. The Director, Medical & Health Services, Rajasthan Jaipur
 (Raj.)    Directorate    Medical        &    Health       Services   Rajasthan,
 Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur (Raj.)
 4. The Chief Medical & Health Officer, Jaipur Ist sethi colony,
 Jaipur (Raj.)
                                                                      Respondent

For Petitioner(s)           :    Mr. G.S. Gill
For Respondent(s)           :    Mr. Vivek Tyagi, DY. G.C.



              HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

                                      Order

20.12.2021

The present matter has a long chequered history which

requires a detailed discussion before adjudication of the same.

Therefore, the facts of the case are detailed out as under:

(2 of 6) [CW-20521/2013]

The petitioners were appointed as Class-IV employees by

CM&HO, Jaipur on temporary basis in the year 1989. Their

services were terminated in the year 1991 against which almost

144 similarly situated candidates preferred writ petition before this

Court. Along with the main file registered as S.B Civil Writ Petition

No. 6351/1990; Ram Pratap Gurjar Vs. State of Rajasthan, all the

said writ petitions were disposed of vide judgment dated

09.10.1991. The claim of the petitioners for quashing of the

orders of termination of their services and for their reinstatement

was rejected but the respondent-Department was directed to

determine the complete vacancies of the Department and make

regular appointments against those vacancies in accordance with

the Rajasthan Class IV Services (Recruitment & Other conditions

of Service) Rule, 1963. It was also directed that while filling-up

those vacancies preference should be given to those candidates

who were appointed as daily-wager or on a part time basis.

Further it was directed that such candidates should be treated as

within age limit for the purpose of being appointed afresh and that

the Government should not make appointments on daily-wage

basis in future.

Special appeals against the judgment dated 09.10.1991 were

dismissed with only two clarifications thereof.

In compliance of the directions of this Court, the Government

invited fresh applications vide advertisement dated 19.08.1993

wherein the present petitioners also applied. But when the

directions issued vide judgment dated 09.10.1991 were not

followed by the Department, again a writ petition was preferred by

the petitioners being Writ Petition No. 5143/2006. The writ

petition was disposed of vide order dated 16.07.2007 in light of

(3 of 6) [CW-20521/2013]

the decision of SB Civil Writ Petition No. 5774/1998; Murari Lal

Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan decided on 02.11.2006. Vide order

dated 16.07.2007, it was directed that if the petitioners are found

senior to Ram Karan Gurjar, they may be considered and given

appointment, if otherwise found suitable.

In pursuance to the directions of this Court, the petitioners

moved a representation to the respondent-Department but the

same was rejected vide order dated 22.02.2008 on the ground

that as Ram Karan Gujrar served from 28.02.1990 to 09.10.1991,

the petitioners were junior to them and therefore not entitled to

be appointed. In the circumstances, a contempt petition was

preferred by one of the petitioners Babu Lal Bunkar being S.B.

Civil Contempt Petition No. 227/2008 but the same was dismissed

vide order dated 12.08.2008 with a liberty to the petitioner to

avail remedy available to him under law. Babu Lal Bunkar,

petitioner No. 4 herein, then preferred Writ petition No.

12446/2008 which was disposed vide order dated 19.05.2010 with

the direction that if the decisions as passed in SB Civil Writ

Petition No. 4582/1995; Raja Babu Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. &

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4586/95; Kailash Chand Dhobi & Anr.

Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. apply to the petitioner his matter

may also be considered and disposed of in the light of those

judgments.

Petitioner No. 4, in pursuance to the directions dated

19.05.2010, preferred a representation to the respondent-

Department but the same was also rejected on the ground that

Raja Babu, Kailash Chand and Banwari Lal Dhobi were temporary

employed persons who had continuously remained in service and

had been given regular appointment in the recruitment process of

(4 of 6) [CW-20521/2013]

year 1993 whereas Babu Lal Bunkar was irregularly appointed on

regular post and was terminated way back in the year 1991.

Against the said rejection again a writ petition (registered as

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 20978/2012) was filed but as meanwhile

the fresh vacancies for 99 posts was advertised by the

Department vide advertisement dated 01.10.2013, the same was

withdrawn with liberty to file fresh.

The case of the petitioner is that now when the fresh

vacancies have been advertised, they may be given preference in

appointment in compliance of the directions of the Hon'ble Court

and they may be considered for appointment irrespective of their

age.

Reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents

with the averments that:

firstly, the judgment dated 09.10.1991 does not apply to the

petitioners because that pertains to daily wage employees/part

time employees whereas the petitioners had been appointed

against the regular post;

secondly, the recruitment process in pursuance to the

advertisement dated 01.10.2013 has been kept on hold by the

Directorate vide Office order dated 21.01.2014 and therefore no

appointment in pursuance to that advertisement can be offered to

the petitioners.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material

available on record.

The above mentioned complete facts makes it evident that

the petitioners have been agitating their cause right from year

1991 and despite specific orders having been passed in their

favour, no relief was granted to them at the appropriate stages.

(5 of 6) [CW-20521/2013]

The two stages when the relief ought to have been granted to the

petitioners were:

Firstly, in pursuance to the directions vide judgment dated

09.10.1991, the petitioners ought to have been granted

preference in selection but most illegally they were not granted;

Secondly, in pursuance to the directions issued vide order dated

16.07.2007 passed in Writ Petition No.5143/2006, the petitioners

ought to have been considered and given appointment as it is

clear on record that they were senior to Ram Karan Gurjar. A bare

perusal of appointment letters of the petitioners placed on record

show that they had been appointed in the year 1989 whereas Ram

Karan Gurjar, according to the document of respondent

themselves, worked from 28.02.1990 to 09.10.1991. By any

stretch of imagination it cannot be concluded that the petitioners

were junior to Ram Karan Gujar therefore the non-consideration of

petitioners at that stage itself was totally invalid.

Be that as it may.

In view of the fact that the fresh vacancies have been

advertised by the Department and the petitioners have applied for

the same, they apprehended that they would now be termed to be

over age and their candidature would be rejected. Vide an interim

order dated 30.01.2014 in the present petition, this court had

while issuing notices directed as under:-

"In the meanwhile, if petitioners apply pursuance to the advertisement dated 1.10.2013 (Annexure-15) for appointment on the post of Class-IV/Ward Boy, their application may not be rejected for the mere reason of they being age barred."

(6 of 6) [CW-20521/2013]

Although the respondents have averred that the recruitment

process in pursuance to advertisement dated 21.01.2014 has been

kept on hold, this Court deems it proper to issue appropriate

directions in favour of the petitioners in view of long battle being

fought by them for justice and the same being denied by

respondent-Department most arbitrarily.

Considering the complete series of litigation between the

parties and the directions passed by this Court from time to time,

the present writ petition deserves to be disposed of with the

following directions:

(i) The petitioners would be given preference in appointment

whenever the recruitment process in pursuance to advertisement

dated 21.01.2014 is taken up;

(ii) The petitioners should be treated as within age limit for the

purposes of being appointed afresh against the said posts;

(iii) If for any reason recruitment process in pursuance to

advertisement dated 21.01.2014 is not completed by the

department, the petitioners would be given preference in

appointment in the future recruitment process to be held by the

Department for the same posts, if they remain otherwise eligible.