Ashish Kumar Shukla vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 11351 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9236/2021

1. Ashish Kumar Shukla S/o Late Shree Hariballabh Shukla, Aged About 39 Years, Shri Krishna Sadan, Mukam Post Thikariya, District Banswara (Raj.).

2. Milan Sharma S/o Shree Nathulal Sharma, Aged About 40 Years, Mukam Post Bori, Tehsil Garhi, District Banswara (Raj.).

3. Rajkumar Shah S/o Shree Mahipal Shah, Aged About 39 Years, Mukam Post Aanjana, Tehsil Garhi, District Banswara (Raj.).

4. Nawal Kishor Sharma S/o Shree Badri Narayan Sharma, Aged About 46 Years, Mukam Post Toda Meena, Via Amber, Tehsil Jamwa Ramgarh, District Jaipur (Raj.).

5. Narayan Lal Katara S/o Shree Nanu Lal, Aged About 52 Years, Nagji Pada, Mukam Post Tamtiya Rathore, Tehsil Garhi, District Banswara (Raj.).

6. Bapulal Garasiya S/o Shree Pona Garasiya, Aged About 43 Years, Nagji Pada, Mukam Post Tamtiya Rathore, Tehsil Garhi, District Banswara (Raj.).

7. Anita Ninama D/o Shree Lakshmi Lal Ninama, Aged About 36 Years, Ward No. 17, Mukam Post Ganoda, District Banswara (Raj.).

8. Rakesh Charpota S/o Shree Bherulal Charpota, Aged About 38 Years, 181, Village Haripura, Post Bagidaura, District Banswara (Raj.).

9. Pramila Meena D/o Shree Prabhulal Meena, Aged About 44 Years, Banekha Road, Anog, District Banswara (Raj.).

10. Jashoda Dodiyaar D/o Shree Phoolji, Aged About 42 Years, Mukam Post Porda, Via Ghatol, District Banswara (Raj.).

11. Lalita Meghwal D/o Shree Gamira Ji Meghwal, Aged About 40 Years, Mukam Post Mota, Tehsil Ghatol, District Banswara (Raj.).

12. Sushil Kumar Tailor S/o Shree Mahipal Tailor, Aged About 39 Years, Mukam And Post Paloda, Tehsil Garhi, District Banswara (Raj.).

13. Harish Kumar Harmor S/o Shree Pooja Lal Harmor, Aged

(2 of 6) [CW-9236/2021]

About 44 Years, Mukam Bhimgarh, Post Lasoda, Tehsil Garhi, District Banswara (Raj.).

14. Ramshankar Adiwasi S/o Shree Laleng Harmor, Aged About 40 Years, Mukam And Post Paloda, Tehsil Garhi, District Banswara (Raj.).

15. Neema Bunka D/o Shree Bhagwati Lal Bunkar, Aged About 36 Years, Mukam Semaliya, Tehsil Garhi, District Banswara (Raj.).

16. Chetan Bunkar S/o Shree Dhula Bunkar, Aged About 40 Years, Mukam And Post Samagada, Tehsil Garhi, District Banswara (Raj.).

17. Shankar Lal Ninama S/o Shree Surdas Ninama, Aged About 39 Years, Mukam Isarwala, Post Nichali Mordi, Tehsil Ganeda, District Banswara (Raj.).

18. Biththal Yadav S/o Shree Devaji Yadav, Aged About 42 Years, Mukam And Post Surpur, Tehsil And District Banswara (Raj.).

19. Koshalya Patel D/o Shree Bhuraji Patel, Aged About 46 Years, Mukam Bhiludi, Tehsil Sangwada, District Dungarpur (Raj.).

20. Popat Lal Meena S/o Shree Gotam Meena, Aged About 46 Years, Village Palthur, Tehsil Sangwada, District Dungarpur (Raj.).

21. Mahipal Parma S/o Shree Dhanraj Parmar, Aged About 43 Years, Mukam Nagfala Damdi, Post Damdi, Panchayat Samiti Dobela, District Dungarpur (Raj.).

22. Nathu Lal Maliwad S/o Shree Khemji Maliwad, Aged About 47 Years, Mukam And Post Karawada, Tehsil Simalwara, District Dungarpur (Raj.).

23. Mukesh Patidar S/o Shree Shivram Patidar, Aged About 38 Years, Mukam And Post Jathana, Tehsil Sangwada, District Dungarpur (Raj.).

24. Dhiraj Kumar Pandya S/o Shree Bhagwati Lal Pandya, Aged About 39 Years, Mukam And Post Bhiluda, Tehsil Sangwada, District Dungarpur (Raj.).

25. Mukesh Chandra Patidar S/o Shree Shivram Patidar, Aged About 35 Years, Mukam And Post Chhotad, Tehsil Sangwada, District Dungarpur (Raj.).

26. Nitin Kumar Dwivedi S/o Shree Yashwant Dwivedi, Aged About 42 Years, Mukam And Post Saroda, Tehsil

(3 of 6) [CW-9236/2021]

Sangwada, District Dungarpur (Raj.).

27. Kapil Kumar Patidar S/o Shree Ganesh Lal Patidar, Aged About 34 Years, Patidar Mohalla Via Khadakgada, Tehsil Sangwada, District Dungarpur (Raj.).

28. Ratan Lal Rot S/o Shree Gotamji Rot, Aged About 40 Years, Mukam And Post Dungarsaran, Panchayat Samiti Chikhali, District Dungarpur (Raj.).

29. Jaiprakash Joshi S/o Shree Jawahar Lal Joshi, Aged About 50 Years, Village And Post Ratadiya, Tehsil Galiya Kot, District Dungarpur (Raj.).

30. Minesh Joshi S/o Shree Purna Shankar Joshi, Aged About 36 Years, Mukam And Post Padardibadi, Tehsil Sangwada, District Dungarpur (Raj.).

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Rural And Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

2. Secretary, Elementary Education Department, Govt.

Secretariat, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

3. Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

4. Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

5. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Banswara.

6. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dungarpur (Raj.).

7. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Banswara (Rajasthan).

8. District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Banswara (Rajasthan).

9. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Dungarpur (Raj.).

10. District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Dungarpur (Rajasthan).

                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Mahendra Choudhary
For Respondent(s)            :



                        JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA


                                          (4 of 6)               [CW-9236/2021]

                                Judgment

23/07/2021

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners

submits that the controversy raised in the instant writ petition is

no more res-integra in view of the adjudication made in the case

of Ramesh Chand Saini & ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.:

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4253/2019, wherein the Division

Bench of this Court observed that:

"During the course of arguments, Mr. Ram Pratap Saini, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that he does not press the challenge to Rule 14 of the Rules of 2008 on peculiar facts of this case provided the State Government is directed to consider petitioners' case for grant of one time relaxation to them.

Selection of the petitioners as Upper Primary Teachers was made with the Primary Teachers. Candidates of both the categories appeared in the common written examination and participated in process of selection. Common merit list was prepared, but the appointments were given on the basis of qualification/ eligibility of the candidates. Appointments of the Primary Teachers were made on 24.09.2007, but the State Government delayed appointments of the petitioners as Upper Primary Teachers and eventually their appointment orders were issued on 01.01.2008. In between, State Government vide notification dated 12.09.2008 promulgated Rajasthan Civil Services(Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 2008. According to Rule 14 of the Rules of 2008, batch of the candidates appointed on the post of Primary Teachers received increment on 01.07.2010 since they completed one year probation period after their appointment before the applicability of the aforesaid notification, but in the case of petitioners, since their appointment was delayed, they could not complete their probation and their increment would be delayed by one year and would be payable on 01.07.2011. Learned counsel has invited attention of the Court towards Rule 3 of the Rules of 2008, where the Governor retains the power to relax the rule in the case of undue hardship in any particular case.

Prima facie, we are satisfied that it is a case of hardship, but since the State Government has not examined this matter, we refrain from expressing any further opinion, except requiring the State Government to have the case of the petitioners

(5 of 6) [CW-9236/2021]

examined for grant of one time relaxation, so as to consider their case and bring them at par with the Primary Teachers appointed in the same process of selection held in pursuance of same advertisement by granting them one increment, may be notionally, with effect from 01.07.2010 considering that they were actually in service on that date and even prior thereto.

We, therefore, direct the State Government to undertake necessary exercise and pass appropriate order with regard thereto within a period of four months from the date of production of copy of this order. It goes without saying that in case grievances of the petitioners are not remedied, the petitioners would be at liberty to file fresh writ petition with the same prayer as made in the present writ petition and also incorporating challenge to the order that may be passed by the State Government."

It is further contended that in S.B.Civil Writ Petition

No.10692/2018 (Lekhraj Meena & ors. Vs. State of

Rajasthan& ors.) decided on 17.5.2018, similar view was taken

by a coordinate Bench of this Court.

Counsel further submits that the petitioners would be

satisfied, if the State-respondents are directed to consider and

decide the representation of the petitioners, in the backdrop of the

adjudication in the case of Ramesh Chand Saini & Ors. (supra),

within a time frame, which they are ready and willing to address

within two weeks hereinafter.

In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant writ

proceedings are closed with a direction to the petitioners to

address a comprehensive representation enclosing a copy of the

order in the case of Ramesh Chand Saini & ors. (supra).

In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid

period, the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide

the same by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with

(6 of 6) [CW-9236/2021]

law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the

representation along with a certified copy of this order.

With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the

writ petition stands disposed of.

Stay petition also stands disposed of.

(DINESH MEHTA),J

176-CPGoyal/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)