Jitendra Beer Singh Gaur Son Of ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 5587 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4139/2020

Jitendra Beer Singh Gaur Son Of Pratap Beer Singh Gaur, Aged
About 60 Years, Resident Of 10 Anand Vihar Extension, Near
Nangal Pulia, Nangal Jaisa Bohra, Jhotwara, Jaipur
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Represented Through Secretary,
       Department       Of      Technical          Education,      Government
       Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.     Director, Skilled, Employment And Technical Education,
       Directorate Of Technical Education, W-6, Residency Road,
       Jodhpur
                                                                ----Respondents

Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3806/2020 Hari Shankar Gupta S/o Shri Ram Nrayan Gupta, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Flat No. 103 C Block, Near View Galaxy Apartment, Near Friends Colony, Kala Kuan, Alawar.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan Represented Through Secretary, Department Of Technical Education, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Director, Skilled, Employment And Technical Education, Directorate Of Technical Education, W-6, Residency Road, Jodhpur

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shovit Jhajharia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hari Kishan Saini, Dy.G.C.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

16/08/2022

(2 of 3) [CW-4139/2020]

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

controversy in question has now been decided by the Division

Bench in the case of Shyam Lal Tailor v. State of Rajasthan &

Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1025/2020) (decided on

05.03.2022).

The Division Bench in Shyam Lal Tailor's case (supra),

held as under:-

"In cases of those employees who have been appointed before 16.07.1991 and were possessed of the eligibility criteria vide amended notification dated 08.07.2009, they would be entitled to regular appointment only from the date of issuance of order of regular appointment and not before that. In other words, the scheme of the rules, after amendment vide notification dated 18.02.2019, clearly has two classes, i.e. those employees, who were appointed on or before 16.07.1991 and those who were appointed after 16.07.1991. As an upshot, of above after discussion and analysis of statutory scheme, though, the petitioners having been appointed after 16.07.1991, i.e. in the year 1993 and possessed of eligibility criteria as per amended notification dated 18.05.1999 would be entitled to regular appointment from the date of their order of appointments i.e. date of initial appointments. They are entitled to seniority also from the date of initial appointments with all consequential benefit of seniority from that date. Petitions are accordingly allowed in the manner and to the extent indicated above."

Learned counsel for the respondent does not refute the

above submission.

(3 of 3) [CW-4139/2020]

In view of the submissions made, these writ petitions are

allowed in terms of the judgment as passed in Shyam Lal

Tailor's case (supra).

All the pending applications also stand disposed of.

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

CHETNA BEHRANI /399-400

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)