Sudesh Agrawal Daughter Of Sh. ... vs The Secretary Primary Education
2021 Latest Caselaw 2801 Raj/2

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 2801 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 12 July, 2021

Rajasthan High Court

Sudesh Agrawal Daughter Of Sh. ... vs The Secretary Primary Education on 12 July, 2021

Bench: Inderjeet Singh

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20732/2019

Sudesh Agrawal Daughter Of Sh. Badri Prsad Agrawal, Aged
About 50 Years, Present Address C/o Dr. K.l. Mittal, House No.
846, Mishra Rajaji Ka Rasta, Chandpole Jaipur-302001 At
Present Terminated From Services As Teacher Grade-Iii From
Government Upper Primary School Bhagwan Under Panchayat
Samiti, Nohar, Hanumangarh (Raj.).
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.     The        Secretary       Primary          Education,        Secretariat,
       Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.     The Director, Primary Education, Bikaner,
3.     District      Education          Officer,         Primary      Education,
       Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. D.K. Mishra.
For Respondent(s)         :



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

                                     Order

12/07/2021

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

following prayer:-

"In view of the abovementioned facts it is respectfully submitted that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to;

a) Quash and set aside the order of termination Dated 06.11.2012, issued by the DEO, Hanumangarh without observing the due process as per rule 86 of the RSR,

b) Direct the Respondents to take her back in service with all consequential benefits w.e.f. 09.11.2011 since when she has been terminated illegality.

c) Pass any other or further order/s as this Hon'ble Colurt may deem fit and proper in the facts circumstances of the case."

(2 of 3) [CW-20732/2019]

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed

as Teacher Grade-III in the year 1999 and while working at

Government Senior Secondary School, Bhagwan Tehsil Nohar

District Hanumangarh, she remained absent from duty since

09.10.2011 and when the petitioner failed to joint her duties, the

District Education Officer (Primary), Hanumangarh vide order

dated 06.11.2012 (Annexure-14) terminated services of the

petitioner under Rule 86 of the Rajasthan Service Rules. Being

aggrieved by the order dated 06.11.2012 the petitioner filed this

writ petition in the year 2019.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that while terminating

services of the petitioner neither any notice providing opportunity

of hearing was served upon the petitioner nor any inquiry was

conducted, therefore action of the respondents terminating her

services is in violation of the settled principles of law. Counsel

further submits that against the impugned action of the

respondents terminating her services, the petitioner regularly

represented the respondents (department) with regard to her

grievances but when nothing was done by the respondents then

she approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India

& Ors. Vs. Chaman Rana reported in (2018) 5 Supreme Court

Cases 798 wherein para No.10 it has been held as under:-

10. Mere repeated filing of representations could not be sufficient explanation for delay in approaching the Court for grant of relief, was considered in Gandhinagar Motor Transport Society v. Kasbekar, by Chagla C.J. observing as follows: (SCC Online Bom : AIR p.203, para

2).

(3 of 3) [CW-20732/2019]

'2...Now, we have had occasion to point out that the only delay which this Court will excuse in presenting a petition is the delay which is caused by the Petitioner pursuing a legal remedy which is given to him. In this particular case the Petitioner did not pursue a legal remedy. The remedy he pursued was extra- legal or extra-judicial. Once the final decision of government is given, a representation is merely an appeal for mercy or indulgence, but it is not pursuing a remedy which the law gave to the petitioner..."

5. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

6. This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be

dismissed for the reasons; firstly the petitioner has challenged the

order dated 06.11.2012 by way of this writ petition after a delay

of almost 7 years in 2019; secondly mere submitting

representations is of no help to the petitioner in view of the

judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of

Union of India (supra), lastly in the facts and circumstances of the

present case, I am not inclined to exercise the extraordinary

jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India at this belated stage.