Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ramveer Singh vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 13 October, 2022

Bench: Rekha Borana

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1916/2017

Ramveer Singh S/o Shri Mahendra Singh, By Caste Jat, Resident of D/75, Samta Nagar, Bikaner

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan Through Director And Joint Secretary, Local Self Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur

2. The Municipal Council, Bikaner Through Its Chief Executive Officer.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. M.S. Purohit
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. S.S. Ladrecha
                                Mr. Devendra Singh Pidiyar



              HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

                                    Order

13/10/2022

The present petition has been filed with the prayer for grant

of service benefits as well as the retiral benefits.

The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed with the

respondent-Department as Excavator-cum-Loader Operator on

18.01.1994 and continued on the said post till his superannuation

on 30.06.2016. It has therefore been prayed that the petitioner is

entitled to all the service benefits as well as retiral benefits by

virtue of period of his service with the respondent-Department.

A reply to the writ petition has been filed and it has been

submitted that earlier a writ petition was preferred by one Madan

Lal challenging the selection of the petitioner which was allowed

(2 of 5) [CW-1916/2017]

vide judgment dated 03.05.2002. Vide the said judgment it was

directed as under:

"The net outcome of the aforesaid discussion is that the writ petition is allowed, and the respondent no.2 is directed to undertake a regular selection exercise, for appointment to the post sanctioned, to be manned by a suitable person to operate the machine in question. It is made clear that in undertaking the selection exercise, the vacancy should be given wide publicity, instead of confining to correspondence with the Employment Exchange, so as to give adequate opportunity to good number of eligible candidates, who may be available, and who may like to offer their candidature for appointment, and thereafter to select, out of the available candidates in accordance with law.

Considering the circumstance that the respondent No.3 was given appointment for a specific period of one year only, and is continuing to hold the post under the orders of this Court passed in Writ Petition No.4533 of 1992, simply because the respondent no.2 has not chosen to undertake the selection exercise for all this long period of around a decade, and is holding the post, depriving all other eligible candidates, who may be available to offer themselves for appointment. I am constrained to direct the respondent no.2, to complete the selection exercise positively within a period of four months. On the expiry of which period, the employment of respondent no.3 would automatically come to an end, unless it is extended, on the extension being sought by respondent no.2, by express order from this Court. The parties are left to bear their own costs."

A perusal of the above judgment makes it clear that the

present petitioner was appointed on a post which was newly

created and the petitioner was appointed only till the period a

regularly selected candidate is appointed. It is also clear on

record that the appointment of the petitioner was a back door

entry and no process of selection was undertaken before

appointing him. In view of the said facts, the writ petition filed by

Madan Lal was allowed and the respondent authorities were

specifically directed to undertake the regular recruitment process.

Against the judgment dated 03.05.2002, a special appeal was filed

by the present petitioner Ramveer Singh and the same was partly

allowed with the following observations:

(3 of 5) [CW-1916/2017]

"After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we do no find any error of law in the judgment of learned Single Judge under challenge in this Special Appeal. Learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the special facts & circumstances of the case in which a writ of quo warranto was filed with regard to the post of Excavator cum Loader Operator in the Municipality. The appellant was initially engaged to operate the machine and to train class IV employee or any driver in the Municipality for operating the machine. Considering the necessity of the services to operate the Excavator cum Loader, he was given contractual appointment, until the selections are made on the post. The Excavator cum Loader Operator is a specialised post for which a special licence is required under the Motor Vehicles Act. The post was not encadred in the Schedule, appended to the Rules and in the circumstances, the directions were issued by the learned Single Judge to allow the appellant to continue until regular selection is made either under the rules after its amendment or otherwise by way of administrative orders. Learned Single Judge however erred in law in issuing direction that if the selection process is not completed within a period of four months, the services of the appellant would automatically come to an end, until they are extended on the extension being sought by the Municipal Council. It is apparent that the learned Single Judge did not conceive the situation where the Municipal Council will neither hold selection nor will seek extension and that compelled the appellant to file this Special Appeal."

The Court further observed as under:

"In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case, this Special Appeal is partly allowed to the extent that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to the effect that if selections are not made within a period of four months, on the expiry of the said period, the employment of the appellant would automatically come to an end, and the order of termination of the appellant dated 11-02-2013 are held to have been passed arbitrarily taking advantage of dismissal of special appeal for want of prosecution. The order of termination dated 11.2.2013 is consequently held to be illegal. The Municipal Council, Bikaner is directed to take the appellant back in service within a week and to allow him to continue until regular selections are made on the post.

We are informed that the appellant has attained the age of 59 years and that he will attain the age of superannuation of 60 years in a year. Considering the long service rendered by the appellant, it is directed that until the regular selections are made, he will be allowed to continue till he attains superannuation and will be paid salary in the regular pay scale, which was allowed by the State Government by order dated 18.1.1994. The appellant, however, will not be entitled to any back wages or the salary during the period he was not in employment. It is expected of the appellant that now

(4 of 5) [CW-1916/2017]

after this judgment, he will withdraw the writ petition pending before the learned Single Judge and that the Labour Court will also decide the matter in terms of the directions issued by us."

A perusal of the above judgment makes it clear that the

Division Bench affirmed the findings of the learned Single Judge

pertaining to illegal/backdoor entry of the petitioner in services

but keeping into consideration the long term of service of the

petitioner rendered with the respondent-Department, protected

him with continuity in services till the regular selections are made.

The Division Bench further directed for payment of the regular

salary to the petitioner in the regular pay scale which he was

already allowed vide order dated 18.01.1994. A bare perusal of

the above observations made by the Division Bench makes it clear

that the Division Bench did not interfere with the special appeal of

the appellant Ramveer Singh on merits and only protected his