Puna Ram Garasiya vs State Of Raj. And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 12232 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13307/2012

Puna Ram Garasiya S/o Shri Thanwara Ji Garasiya, aged about 50 years, by caste Garasiya, resident of Village Suran, Post Jaswantgarh, Via Nandesma, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, through the Director and Special Secretary, Rural Development & Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Rajasthan, Bikaner.

3. Zila Parishad, Udaipur.

4. The District Establishment Committee, Zila Parishad, Udaipur through its Chief Executive Officer & Secretary, Udaipur.

5. District Education Officer, Primary Education, Udaipur (Raj.)

6. Shri. S.L. Mandovara, District Education Officer, Primary Education, Udaipur C/o Zila Parishad, Udaipur.

7. Panchayat Samiti, Gogunda, District Udaipur.

                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Ajay Sharma
For Respondent(s)            :     Dr. Bhawna Jangid, Dy.G.C.



             HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

                                        Order

12/10/2022

The present writ petition has been filed with the following

prayers:

"(b) For directing the respondents to issue posting order and thereafter regularize the service of the petitioner w.e.f. 10.8.1985 at par with other similarly situated teachers shown vide Annexure-A/6.

(c) For and in the alternative reviewing position may be given to Annexure-A/9 if this Hon'ble Court thinks fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(2 of 4) [CW-13307/2012]

(d) For restraining the Zila Parishad, Udaipur from making any appointment of untrained teachers till the posting of the petitioner is made in pursuance of the Annexure-A/10"

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner worked as

Teacher with the respondent-Department from 08.12.1985 to

03.12.1991. The said appointment was totally contractual and

ultimately his services were terminated. The petitioner preferred

writ petition No.1060/2006 along with other untrained teachers

who were also terminated at that stage and the said writ petition

was dismissed in the year 2006 against which a special appeal was

preferred but the said appeal was withdrawn by the petitioner. In

the year 2012, again a writ petition was preferred by the

petitioner being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2063/2012 seeking

appointment on the post of Teacher Gr. III on the basis that the

petitioner had rendered the services on contract basis and the

respondent-Department has accorded appointment to many of the

similarly situated persons. The said writ petition of the petitioner

was dismissed vide judgment dated 03.04.2012 after an elaborate

discussion on merits. In the said judgment it was concluded as

under:

"In the present case, put in a nutshell, this Court finds that the petitioner worked as a contract teacher from 08.12.1985 to 03.12.1991 and not beyond. Even if he was called upon to submit documents with reference to his application made in the year 2001, the petitioner was aware, at least in the year 2003 itself, that his claim for appointment had not been accepted by the respondents. It appears from the communication dated 08.09.2009 (Annex. 15) that earlier, the persons who had worked as contract teachers were invited to submit applications and then, selections were made through Zila Parishads. In that process, out of about 4491 applicants, only about 1905 were accorded the appointment. Even if the Government had taken some measures in the past for according regular appointment to the contractual teachers, it cannot

(3 of 4) [CW-13307/2012]

be laid down that the Government would be obliged to continue with such process of regularisation for indefinite length of time and to accord appointment to each and every person who had once-upon-a- time worked on contract basis. It is noticed and remains undeniable that now, the process of regular recruitment has been taken up by the respondents.

In the totality of the circumstances, this Court finds no reason to consider issuing any writ, order or direction now at this stage so as to direct the respondents to consider according appointment/regularisation to the petitioner, who served on contract basis from the year 1985 to the year 1991, merely with reference to the fact that some appointments/regularisations were made in the past. Such a claim by the petitioner remains hollow and baseless; and is required to be rejected with reference to the dictum of the Hon'ble Constitutional Bench in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi: (2006) 4 SCC 1.

The writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed."

The present writ petition has been filed again for the same

reliefs as prayed for in the earlier writ petition filed by the

petitioner in the year 2012.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after

dismissal of his earlier writ petition on 03.04.2012, the petitioner

obtained certain documents under Right to Information Act, 2005

(hereinafter referred to as "RTI Act") and in terms of the said

documents the petitioner was required to be granted appointment

which has not been done therefore, the present writ petition has

been preferred.

A perusal of the document as averred by learned counsel for

the petitioner having been obtained under the RTI Act makes it

clear that vide the said document it has been resolved by the

concerned committee that the documents would be called from

the petitioner for consideration and after verification of the same,

(4 of 4) [CW-13307/2012]

case of the petitioner would be considered for appointment. The

said document does not anyway specify that the petitioner was

directed to be appointed straight forward. Moreover, a perusal of

the judgment as passed in the earlier writ petition preferred by

the petitioner makes it clear that the said document was very well

considered by the Court and it was specifically held that although

the petitioner was called upon to submit documents with reference

to his application, he was aware at least in the year 2003 itself

that his claim for appointment had not been accepted by the

respondents. Further it was specifically held that the petitioner

was not entitled for appointment/regularization only on the basis

of the fact that some appointments/regularizations were made by

the Department in the past. A perusal of the above mentioned

findings in the earlier writ petition makes it clear that no new fact

has been averred in the present petition which can be termed to

be a subsequent development after the decision of the earlier writ

petition.

Therefore, the present writ petition for the same reliefs as

prayed for in the earlier writ petition and decided way back in the

year 2012 cannot be entertained by this Court on the strict

principles of res judicata.

Hence, the present petition is dismissed.

All the pending applications stand disposed of.

(REKHA BORANA),J 12-AbhishekS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)