Jitendra Singh vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 9004 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5933/2018

Jitendra Singh S/o Sh. Devi Singh, Resident Of Village Nimuthar Tehsil Chabra, District Bara Raj

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Department Of Law And Legal Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Special Public Prosecutor Sc/st Act Cases, Pratapgarh.

3. Chairman Trig Ex-Serviceman Welfare Co-Operative Society Limited, B-173, Jamnapuri Colony, Murlipura Scheme, Jaipur- 302013.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Niwas Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Shah, AAG

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Order 11/07/2022

The matter comes upon an application under Article 226(3)

of the Constitution of India for vacation of the interim order dated

27.04.2018 vide which the services of the petitioner were directed

to be continued.

A perusal of the order dated 27.04.2018 makes it clear that

the same was passed keeping in view the order passed in an

identical writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.5745/2018; Devendra Singh Purawat vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the

respondents that a similar application under Article 226(3) of the

Constitution of India was also filed in the identical writ petition

No.5745/2018 by the State and the same was allowed vide order

dated 30.10.2019. Against the said order, a special appeal was

(2 of 4) [CW-5933/2018]

preferred by the petitioner therein Devendra Singh Purawat being

D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1479/2019 (Devendra Singh

Purawat vs. State of Rajasthan & ors). The said appeal was

also dismissed vide order dated 16.12.2019 and therefore, the

present application for vacation of the interim order also deserves

to be allowed in view of the order dated 30.10.2019 passed in the

identical writ petition.

A perusal of the order dated 30.10.2019 passed in the case

of Devendra Singh Purawat (supra) as well as the order dated

16.12.2019 passed by the Division Bench, makes it clear that the

grounds raised in the present application on behalf of the

applicant and those raised in defence by the non-applicants were

same in that matter. Therefore, the issue cannot be differentiated

from that of Devendra Singh Purawat's case.

In Devendra Singh Purawat vs. State of Rajasthan &

Ors., the Co-ordinate Bench held as under:

"In the entire petitions, it is not the case of the petitioners that the respondents have recruited more persons than what was advertised in the year 2013 by the RPSC. In fact, the petitions are totally silent on the said aspect except for indications that posts created in the year 2017-18 have been filled from incumbents from recruitment, which was initiated in the year 2013 and concluded in the year 2018. As such the ratio of the judgments in the case of Prem Singh (supra) and Ashok Kumar (supra), has no application to the facts of the present case.

Once the recruitment has taken place for the post of Clerk Grade-II by the respondents, it is well within the powers of the respondents to accord postings at a particular place and once the postings have been accorded at the places where the petitioners are working, the consequences as indicated in the orders of employment are bound to follow.

(3 of 4) [CW-5933/2018]

By way of reply to the application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought to contend that the State by way of a circular dated 08.05.2019, has started collecting data for the purpose of regularizing the contractual employees and in case the interim orders are vacated, the petitioners will lose out on that.

Insofar as the said aspect is concerned, merely because the State in exploring the aspect pertaining to regularization of contractual employees, the petitioners cannot seek to continue on the positions on the said count.

Another aspect has been raised that the petitioners have not been paid salary, which submissions if correct, the action on part of the respondents, cannot be countenanced.

In view of the above discussion, the applications filed by the respondents under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, are allowed. The interim orders granted by the Court on 24.04.2018 and 27.04.2018 in respective writ petitions shall stand vacated and the stay applications shall stand dismissed.

The outstanding salary of the petitioners, if any, shall be paid to them within a period of three weeks from the date of this order."

In view of the observations made in the case of Devendra

Singh Purawat (supra), the present application under Article

226(3) of the Constitution of India also deserves to be allowed

and is allowed in the same terms. Interim order dated

27.04.2018 is vacated. However, it is made clear that if the

respondent-Department proceeds to replace the present petitioner

by other contractual employee, the petitioner would be at liberty

to again approach this Court.

The stay application is dismissed accordingly.

(REKHA BORANA),J 47-Ashutosh/-

                                                         (4 of 4)               [CW-5933/2018]









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)