Rajasthan High Court
Poonam Chand Bhandari Son Of Late ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 20 October, 2021
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Farjand Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ (PIL) Petition No. 8053/2019
Dr. Chetna Yadav W/o Shri S.k. Yadav, Aged About 38 Years,
Resident Of 5, Ganesh Colony, Tonk Road Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Government Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, School
Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Board Of Secondary Education Of Rajasthan, Through Its
Secretary Board Of Secondary Education Rajasthan,
Ajmer.
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 904/2020
Poonam Chand Bhandari Son Of Late Shri Rikhab Raj Bhandari,
Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of A-14, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Finance, Government Of Rajasthan, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Shri Niranjan Arya, Ex-Additional Chief Secretary-Finance
(Presently Posted As Chief Secretary, Government Of
Rajasthan), Government Of Rajasthan, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Shri Akhil Arora, Principal Secretary, Department Of
Finance, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Smt. Aparna Arora, Principal Secretary, Secondary
Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Poonam Chand Bhandari,
Advocate with Dr. T.N. Sharma,
Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Advocate General
with Mr. Siddhant Jain, Advocate
(2 of 4) [CW-8053/2019]
Mr. Sheetanshu Sharma, Advocate
Mr. S.S. Raghav, Additional Advocate
General with Mr. Ajay Singh Rajawat,
Advocate
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Judgment / Order
20/10/2021
By way of this PIL, the petitioner has sought direction to
respondents to make efficient and permanent arrangements of
computer facilities in the larger interest of students, who are
studying in Government Schools in the State of Rajasthan.
Taking into consideration the cause as espoused by the
petitioner, we issued direction in the matter in response to which
the State, from time to time, has come out with the steps-
initiatives taken by it to ensure computer facilities and related
infrastructure in Government Schools. Lastly, an affidavit has been
filed today and in that affidavit, elaborate statement has been
made with regard to the development taken so far towards
development of necessary infrastructure, rule making, recruitment
etc. Among other things, it has been stated in the affidavit that
11674 computer labs have been established in the secondary and
higher secondary schools. However, a proposal still stands under
which, 960 more schools have to be equipped with similar
facilities. Learned Advocate General referring to the averments
made in the affidavit has also brought attention of this Court to
the fact that recruitment on 9862 posts of Basic Computer
Instructor and 591 posts of Senior Computer Instructor have
already been sanctioned. Document to that effect has also been
(3 of 4) [CW-8053/2019]
placed on record. Moreover, a decision has been taken to deploy
the Science Teachers, who are having certificate of computer
course of RS-CIT and a direction, issued in this regard, has
already been placed before us. Moreover, draft rules, which have
been made for the regular recruitment on the posts of Basic
Computer Instructor and Senior Computer Instructor, has already
been intimated to the Staff Selection Board as reflected vide
communication dated 18.10.2021. The scheme of examination as
well as syllabus has also been forwarded to Staff Selection Board.
We however, find that the rules have not been finalised till date.
Unless the rules are finalised, we are afraid, the process of
recruitment may not be completed at the earliest.
Learned Advocate General states that necessary steps shall
be taken to ensure that the rules are finalized at the earliest. We
have no reason to disbelieve the statement so made by learned
Advocate General.
In view of the steps, which have so far been taken by the
State, as reflected from the affidavit filed before us, at this stage,
we are of the view that the purpose of filing of this PIL stands
fulfilled, though some of the steps are yet to be taken. What so far
has been done is clearly stated in the affidavit. Learned Advocate
General assured that the steps towards finalisation of the rules
and recruitment would be completed at the earliest. In our view,
this PIL at this stage has to be disposed off.
The part of the process of recruitment, which is yet
incomplete, should be completed at the earliest. Keeping in view
the fact that the draft rules are in the pipeline and some time may
be consumed for finalization, we are inclined to direct the State to
complete the process within an outer limit of four months.
(4 of 4) [CW-8053/2019]
Needless to mention that steps for ensuring completion of process
of recruitment before time allotted by this Court, may also be
adopted by the State.
The petitioner would be at liberty to revive the petition, in
case, the recruitment and other facilities for providing computer
labs in the Schools are not completed within the time as stipulated
in our order.
We appreciate the efforts made by learned counsel for the
parties.
This PIL petition is disposed off accordingly.
In view of the directions and observations, which have been
made by us in the PIL petition, we are not inclined to proceed
further in the contempt petition. The same is closed.
(FARJAND ALI),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J
Mohita/41-42
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
