Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Savitri Pareek vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 3 February, 2023
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2023/RJJD/003750]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3013/2019
1. Savitri Pareek W/o Shri Dinesh Pareek, Aged About 39
Years, R/o Masuriya, Near Baba Ramdev Temple, Jodhpur,
District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
2. Rahul Jatoliya S/o Shri Kaluram Jatoliya,, Aged About 29
Years, R/o 52 Outside Nagori Gate, Jodhpur, District
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
3. Neemaram S/o Shri Bhera Ram,, Aged About 26 Years, R/
o Vpo Mogra Kalla, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
4. Shobha Devid W/o Shri Nikolsan Mesi,, Aged About 36
Years, R/o 2/639, Kuri Bhagtasani Housing Board,
Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
5. Dhanraj Kahar S/o Shri Ram Narayan Kahar,, Aged About
27 Years, R/o Outside Sahapuragate, Sawar, Tehsil Sawar,
District Ajmer, Rajasthan.
6. Sonali Sharma D/o Shri Ramjeet Sharma,, Aged About 23
Years, R/o 402, Adarsh Nagar, Sirohi, District Sirohi,
Rajasthan.
7. Shivani Sharma W/o Shri Navratan Sharma,, Aged About
24 Years, R/o Adarsh Colony, Kekdi, Ajmer, District Ajmer,
Rajasthan.
8. Ramniwas S/o Shri Kishanaram,, Aged About 25 Years, R/
o 43, Brahmano Ka Baas, Nacloli Mertiya, Via Besroli,
Tehsil Makrana, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
9. Aditi Vyas D/o Shri Gopal Vyas,, Aged About 24 Years, R/
o Near Mamta Sweets, Shashtrinagar, Ajmer, District
Ajmer, Rajasthan.
10. Rughpal Singh S/o Shri Chain Singh,, Aged About 39
Years, R/o Vpo Balesar, Durgawtan, Tehsil Balesar, District
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
11. Renu Sharma D/o Shri Sukhjeet Ram Sharma,, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Near Old Karni Temple, Tilak Nagar,
Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
12. Nirmal Singh Rao S/o Shri Bhanwar Sigh Rao,, Aged
About 32 Years, R/o Vpo Dobaria, Gachipara, District
Nagaur, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 04/02/2023 at 11:07:19 PM)
[2023/RJJD/003750] (2 of 4) [CW-3013/2019]
13. Vipendra Singh S/o Shri Vikram Singh,, Aged About 39
Years, R/o Village Dholadata, Post Dungarwas, Beawar,
District Ajmer, Rajasthan.
14. Pramod Kumar Saini S/o Shri Ram Charan Saini,, Aged
About 25 Years, R/o Village Ataripura, Post Baroli, Tehsil
Bhusawar, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
15. Shelendra Bunmeru S/o Shri Shyam Lal Bunmeru,, Aged
About 38 Years, R/o B-31, Mahaveer Colony, Ratanada,
Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
16. Mukesh S/o Shri Velchand Bhai,, Aged About 27 Years, R/
o Vpo Methwala, Tehsil Garhi, District Banswara,
Rajasthan.
17. Vikram Singh Mertiya S/o Shri Santu Singh Mertiya,, Aged
About 37 Years, R/o 37-A, Shakti Colony, Ratanada,
Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
18. Saroj Garwa D/o Shri Mangu Ram,, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o Village Jhalamaliya, Post Ranigaon, Tehsil Makrana,
District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
19. Ruchi Shukla D/o Shri Favindra Shukla,, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Plot No. 6, Khasra No. 39/6, 33 Tempo Stand,
Nandari, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of School Education, Secretariat, Govt. Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, District
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
3. The State Project Director, Rajasthan Council Of School
Education, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur, District Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
4. The Commissioner, Rajasthan Council Of School
Education, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur, District Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
5. The Chief District Education Officer And Ex-Officio District
Project Co-Ordinator, Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan, District
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
6. The Chief District Education Officer And Ex-Officio District
Project Co-Ordinator, Samagra Shiksha Abhiya, District
(Downloaded on 04/02/2023 at 11:07:19 PM)
[2023/RJJD/003750] (3 of 4) [CW-3013/2019]
Pali, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Jangid
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mohit Singh Shekhawat
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
03/02/2023
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the
controversy in question has already been decided in S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.10843/2019; Seema Gupta & Ors. Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
In view of the abovementioned submission, the present writ
petition is also allowed on the same terms as in the matter of
Seema Gupta (supra). The operative portion of the judgment is
quoted hereinunder:
"After hearing the learned counsel for the
parties and looking to the factual matrix of the case,
this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of these
writ petitions while intervening on a limited count,
which is that if the petitioners are having proper
qualification and are eligible to be appointed as
Vocational Trainers and were duly selected by the
respondents strictly in accordance with law on
contractual basis, then their services shall not be
replaced by another set of contractual Vocational
Trainers to be appointed in pursuance of the order
dated 20th May, 2019. While observing as above, this
Court makes it clear that this court is not inclined to
go into the legality of the order dated 20th May, 2019
at this stage as the same is not prejudicial to the
(Downloaded on 04/02/2023 at 11:07:19 PM)
[2023/RJJD/003750] (4 of 4) [CW-3013/2019]
interest of the present petitioners. The protection to
the petitioners shall be strictly as per their
qualification and eligibility and appointment based on
legal selection process for the contractual post of
Vocational Trainers. The substitution shall not be
made by another set of Vocational Trainers being
appointed in pursuance of the order dated 20th May,
2019. The respondents shall, however, be free to
conduct the services of the petitioners as per the
existing project and scheme. Lastly, while addressing
the apprehension raised by counsel for the petitioners
that their salaries are not being paid in time since
long, we direct the respondents to pay the salary to
the petitioners as expeditiously as possible."
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
18-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
