Om Prakash Khuntela S/O Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 5581 Raj/2

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                 BENCH AT JAIPUR

            S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8342/2022

1.   Om Prakash Khuntela S/o Shri Bhangwan Singh, Aged
     About 52 Years, Resident Of Village Abhora, District
     Bharatpur (Rajasthan)
2.   Satyendra Singh S/o Shri Mahendra Singh, Aged About 36
     Years, Resident Of 43/167, Near Central School, Surajmal
     Nagar, Bharatpur.
3.   Satviri W/o Shri Rajveer Singh, Aged About 49 Years, R/o
     Korer, District Bharatpur.
4.   Ajay Kumar Basotia S/o Sri Radey Shyam Basotia, Aged
     About 49 Years, Resident Of Indra Colony, Chomu, District
     Jaipur, Rajasthan.
5.   Jagmal Singh S/o Shri Ram Karan Singh, Aged About 53
     Years, Resident Of New Housing Board, Shivsinghpura,
     District Sikar (Rajasthan).
6.   Rakesh Kumar S/o Shri Mange La, Aged About 44 Years,
     Resident   Of    Sunari,       District      Bharatpur      (Rajasthan)
     321001.
7.   Amit Garg, Programme Officer, Aged About 40 Years,
     Samagra     Shiksha,        Bharatpur,         R/o      Agrasen   Nagar,
     Bharatpur, (Rajasthan.)
                                                               ----Petitioners
                                Versus
1.   State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary To
     Govt. , Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
     Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.   Director, Secondary Education Department, Rajasthan,
     Bikaner.
3.   Rajasthan School Shiksha Parishad, Through Its State
     Project Director, Dr. S. Radhakrishanan Shiksha Sankul,
     J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur.
                                                             ----Respondents

Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8240/2022

1. Subhash Choudhary S/o Shri Bajrang Lal Choudhary, Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of V-1, Vivek Nagar,

(2 of 9) [CW-8342/2022]

Sanganer, Jaipur.

2. Suresh Chandra Meena S/o Shri Mohan Lal Meena, Resident Of Ward No. 5, Khejroli Road, Udaipuriya, Hathonda, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

3. Balveer Singh S/o Shri Devi Singh, Aged About 9 Years, Resident Of Shiv Colony, New Sanganer Road, Sodala, Jaipur-302019.

4. Shaitan Mal Meena S/o Shri Har Sahay Meena, Resident Of Jairampura, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

5. Gopal Lal Saini S/o Shri Girdhari Lal Saini, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 33, Samod Road, Chomu, District Jaipur (Rajasthan).

6. Gopal Lal Sharma S/o Shri Kajodi Lal Sharma, Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of Gothara, Hansmahal, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur (Raj.)

7. Prakash Chand Meena S/o Shri Sundar Lal Meena, Aged About 49 Years, Resident Of Bhaisapatti Khurd, Bhaisa, Tehsil Todabheem, District Karauli (Rajasthan)-321611.

8. Kalu Ram S/o Shri Ramphool Meena, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Kali Pahadi, District Dausa (Rajasthan).

9. Bhagwan Sahai Gupta S/o Shri Ram Swaroop Gupta, Resident Of Ganesh Colony, Ganapura Road, Lalsot, District Dausa (Rajasthan).

10. Dinesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Babu Lal Sharma, Aged About 49 Years, Resident Of 18, Ganesh Vihar, Kacholiya Road, Tripoliya, Chomu, District Jaipur (Raj.)

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary To Govt., Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Director, Secondary Education Department, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

3. Rajasthan School Shiksha Parishad, Through Its State Project Director, Dr. S. Radhakrishanan Shiksha Sankul, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8609/2022

(3 of 9) [CW-8342/2022]

1. Rajendra Singh Khichar S/o Shri Ladoo Ram Khichar, Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 4, Village Niwai, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan)

2. Rajendra Singh Kapuria, S/o Shri Gulab Singh, Aged About 57 Years, C-171, Resident Of Basat Vihar, Ward No. 4, Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan)

3. Manoj Kumar, S/o Shri Bajrang Lal, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Village Post Khinwasar, Tehsil Udaipurwati, Via Titanwar, District Jhunjhunu.

4. Sarwan Kumar S/o Shri Phool Chand, Aged About 53 Years, Resident Of Ladusar, Via Chainpura, District Jhunjhunu.

5. Devendra Kumar S/o Shri Mangal Chand, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of F-47, Ward No. 15, Aoudhyogika Kshetra, Pilani Via Chirawa District Jhunjhunu.

6. Vidhya Prakash Meena S/o Shri Sanwar Lal Meena, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Guwordi, Jaisinghpura, Jaipur

7. Bhim Singh, S/o Shri Natthi, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of Pairadaij Colony, Bharatpur (Rajasthan).

8. Amba Shankar, S/o Ram Swarup, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Gandhar Bhavan, G.t. Road, Near Khadi Bhandar, Jiroli, Dhaulpur, Dholpur, Rajasthan.

9. Krishna Kumar Garg, S/o Vishambhar Nath Garg, R/o Area/locality/sector Basant Bhavam, Village/town/city Kolari, District Dholpur, P.o Kolari, State Rajasthan.

10. Mahesh Kumar S/o Ram Kishan Goyal, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Sec. No. 04, Shastri Nagar, G.t. Road, Dhaulpur, Dholpur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary To Govt., Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Director, Secondary Education Department, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

3. Rajasthan School Shiksha Parishad, Through Its State Project Director, Dr. S. Radhakrishanan Shiksha Sankul, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur.

                                                                ----Respondents



                                          (4 of 9)                  [CW-8342/2022]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8610/2022

1. Kirodi Lal Meena S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Meena, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Village Jamool Khera, Chharoda District Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan)-322029

2. Rekha Jain W/o Shri Arun Gupta, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of 344, Ladpura, Kota (Rajasthan)

3. Mohammed Sabir C/o Shri Abdul Haeem Khan, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Behind Jain Mandir, Bahter District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.).

4. Mustak Ali S/o Shri Multiya Ali, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Makholi District Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan).

5. Lokesh Kumar S/o Shri Sitaram, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of Jaswant Nagar, Bharatpur (Rajasthan)- 321001.

6. Om Prakash S/o Shri Jagannath, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Joun Ki Talai, Banderiya Badagoan, Didayach District Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan)

7. Pratibha Bhardwaj W/o Yogesh Kumar Sharma, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of A-12, Near Plot No.100, Shiv Colony, Barket Nagar, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 302015

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary To Govt., Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Director, Secondary Education Department, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

3. Rajasthan School Shiksha Parishad, Through Its State Project Director, Dr. S. Radhakrishanan Shiksha Sankul, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naval Kishore Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

(5 of 9) [CW-8342/2022]

16/08/2022

Counsel for the parties are in agreement that the issue

involved in these writ petitions has been considered and decided

by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur

in the matter of Ram Naresh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8645/20222) and other

connected matters decided on 03.08.2022 wherein it has been

held as under;

"As all these writ petitions are of similar nature, the facts indicated in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7530/2022 (Naresh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) are taken into consideration. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the advertisement dated 11.5.2022 (Annex.8), whereby, the respondents have advertised various posts for being filled in by way of deputation.

Submissions have been made that the petitioners are already working on the said posts on deputation and their period of deputation has not come to an end, inasmuch as, under the directions issued under Rule 144-A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 ('RSR'), the deputation can continue for 4 years and that none of the petitioners have completed 4 years on deputation.

Submissions have been made that for repatriating the petitioners to their parent department before completion of 4 years, the respondents are required to come to a conclusion that continuation of petitioners on the said posts, is not required, however, no such indication has been made and, therefore, passing of the orders by the respondents seeking to fill-up the posts by other candidates, is not justified.

Further submissions have been made that the respondents have not implemented the plea sought to be raised in the reply to the writ petitions about a policy decision uniformly as they have acted in a pick & chose manner, wherein, though qua the petitioners orders have been passed, qua several other persons, no such order has been passed and, therefore, on that count the action of the respondents in this regard deserves to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent -

Council made submissions that the decision to put to an end the deputation has been taken qua 4 posts i.e. Programme Officer, Resource Person, Assistant Project Coordinator & Assistant Director by the respondents for all those, who have completed 3 years / more than 3 years on deputation with the

(6 of 9) [CW-8342/2022]

respondents, based on which, treating the posts as vacant, the advertisement has been issued. Submissions have been made that the policy is being applied uniformly for all the 4 posts and, in case, it is pointed out / few posts are still being manned by those, who have completed 3 years or more than 3 years, therein also the requisite orders would be passed by the respondents.

Submissions were also made that qua one person i.e. Mr. Juber Ahamed - Assistant Director, an order dated 18.7.2022 has been passed extending his period of deputation into 5th year, inasmuch as, the nature of work being performed by him cannot mid-way be handed over to a newly recruited person and for these reasons, the said person has been accorded extension.

By order dated 19.7.2022, learned counsel for the respondent - Council was directed to file an additional affidavit specifying the reasons for coming to the conclusion that deputation of all those who have already worked for 3 years / more than 3 years be put to an end. Pursuant thereto, an additional affidavit has been filed inter alia indicating that besides the fact that a policy decision has been taken by the State, the reason for putting to an end the deputation has arisen on account of ensuring a uniform period on all 4 positions co-terminus with the academic session.

Further indications have been made that the work of preparing the Annual Action Plan, Budget and approval of the Project Approval Board (PAB) is started every year in the month of January and completed by the month of April every year and that the Committees are constituted at the school, block, district and State levels in order to prepare the Annual Action Paln and Budget to achieve the goals and objects of the Samgra Shiksha and, therefore, the appointments are required to be made during the said period only. Submissions have also been made that the petitioners have no right to continue on deputation for the period of 4 years as such and, therefore, the petitions deserve dismissal. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

The challenge laid by the petitioners essentially is based on the instructions issued under Rule 144-A of RSR, which provides for a maximum period of 4 years of deputation and, in case, extension beyond 4 years is required, the same requires approval from the department.

Submissions have been made that as the petitioners have not completed 4 years, without their being any specific reason, the petitioners could not be repatriated to their parent department and action of the respondents in this regard is bad in law. The respondents have relied on the policy decision in this regard putting to an end deputation of all those working on the 4 posts indicated i.e. Programme

(7 of 9) [CW-8342/2022]

Officer, Resource Person, Assistant Project Coordinator & Assistant Director, who have completed 3 years / 3 and half years. The respondents have produced copy of the note- sheet containing the decision in this regard. The note-sheet dated 31.1.2022 written in the handwriting of the concerned Cabinet Minister inter alia reads as under:-

""Øa- la- 5 ds vfrfjDr 'k s"k lHkh izLrko ;Fkk izLrkfor vuqeksfnr @ lexz f'k{kk ds jkT; @ ftyk @ Cykd dk;kZy; e sa rhu o"kZ l s vf/kd vof/k rd ds izfrfu;qfDr ij dk;Zjr inksa ds fy, iqu% lk{kkRdkj fy;s tku s gsr w i=koyh rRdky izLrqr dj saA A.C.S., Education sd/

cqykdhnkl dYyk

[email protected]@2022"

Further note-sheets wherein the specific decision in this regard has been taken, has referred to the Note of the Minister and thereafter the proceedings have been initiated for the purpose of putting to an end deputation of all those who have completed 3 years / more than 3 years.

The justification for taking a decision with regard to putting to an end the deputation at the end of 3 years / more than 3 years, has been submitted by way of additional affidavit, wherein, the respondents have inter alia indicated as under:-

"8. That in order to achieve the objects of the Samgra Shiksha the council is required to prepare Annual Work Plan and Budget of the project which is required to be approved by the Project Approval Board (PAB). Only after approval of the annual work plan the required funds are determined by the government of India for the next academic session.

10. That the success of the project is based on the preparation of the aforesaid Annual Action Plan and Budget accordingly the initiatives are taken from the school level and consolidated at the block, district and state level. Therefore all the officers and other staff members working at the block level to state level have to perform the work of PAB at the top priority.

11. That the work of preparing the Annual Action Plan, Budget and approval of the PAB is started every year in the month of January and completed by the month of April every year. In the previous academic session also the PAB work was started soon after receiving the letter dated 21.12.2021 from the Ministry of Human Resources

(8 of 9) [CW-8342/2022]

Development Government of India and the same was completed in the PAB meeting convened on 10.05.2022.

12. That for the purpose of Annual Action Plan and Budget, committees are constituted at the school, block, district and state levels which complete the work assigned to them in order to prepare the Annual Action Plan and Budget to achieve the goals and objects of the Samgra Shiksha. Even the officers and staff working on this assignment are not permitted to leave their respective Headquarters.

13. That considering the aforesaid background the Hon'ble Minister after having discussion and deliberations put a note to prepare a list of the officers/ employees completed 3 years or more on deputation with Samgra Shiksha so that the academic activities and teaching to the students at the entire school level is not disturbed and the Secondary, Senior Secondary Board as well as other classes examinations are held without difficulties."

From the above, it is apparent that the concerned Minister apparently based on some deliberations has passed the order for putting to an end the deputation of those who have completed 3 years / more than 3 years and that the respondents have further elaborated the basis in the additional affidavit (supra) for coming to the said conclusion. Apparently, based on the above policy decision, the advertisement has been issued for the posts held by the petitioners and, therefore, on account of the decision having been taken by the respondents, based on the relevant consideration and material, the same does not call for any interference. Insofar as, the submissions made regarding the purported action of the respondents in picking / choosing candidates for repatriating them to the parent department, learned counsel for the respondent - Council has made a specific submission that the respondents would not discriminate in any manner qua the 4 posts already indicated hereinbefore and all those who have completed 3 years / more than 3 years would be repatriated to their parent department and, in case, for any specific reason as indicated in the case of Mr. Juber Ahamed, any extension is required / the person needs to be retained, the respondents would pass specific order elaborately indicating the reason for such extension /

(9 of 9) [CW-8342/2022]

retention of that candidate and that reason also would be genuine and not an eye-wash. In view of the above, the petitions filed by the petitioners do not call for any interference. The same are, therefore, dismissed. However, the respondents are directed to ensure that the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent - Council regarding not retaining any candidate on the 4 posts, who have completed 3 years / more than 3 years, would be ensured by the respondents and orders, if any, in this regard shall be passed within a period of four weeks from today."

In that view of the matter, these writ petitions stand

disposed of in view of the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court at Principal Seat Jodhpur in the matter of Ram

Naresh (supra).

Interim order stands vacated.

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

CHETNA BEHRANI 128-131

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)