Mal Chand Modi vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8889 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 8889 Raj
Judgement Date : 1 November, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mal Chand Modi vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 1 November, 2023

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

[2023:RJ-JD:37066]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17655/2021

Mal Chand Modi S/o Shri Babu Lal Modi, Aged About 58 Years, 2 Kng, Makkasar, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. The Director (Secondary Education), Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Bikaner (Raj.).

3. The Director (Primary Education), Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Bikaner (Raj.).

4. Nehru Samriti Senior Higher Secondary School, Hanumangarh Junction Through Chairman, Nehru Samriti School Management Committee, Hanumangarh (Raj.).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.S.Sodha For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sarwan Kumar for Mr. Hemant Choudhary

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order

01/11/2023 I.A.No. 01/2023:-

1. For the reasons stated, the application seeking early hearing

of the matter is allowed.

2. The matter is taken up for consideration today itself.

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17655/2021:-

1. The petitioner has approached this Court with the following

prayers:-

"(a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may be directed consider the

[2023:RJ-JD:37066] (2 of 5) [CW-17655/2021]

case of the petitioner under Rule, 2010 and he may be taken in Government Service and they may further be directed to pay all consequential benefits of absorption with back wages.

(b) the respondents may be directed to pay all arrears of salary, increments, selection grades and all other service benefits alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of termination of service of the petitioner to the date of realization.

(c) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by a

judgment dated 02.11.2011 passed by this Court at Jaipur Bench

rendered in the case of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.

11725/2010 : Sobhagya Singh Shekhawat & Ors. Vs. State

of Rajasthan & Ors.

3. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sobhagya

Singh Shekhawat (supra) has held thus:-

"The issue in the petition is as to whether the employees recruited on sanctioned posts for which the school received aid from the State Government for several years can be considered under the Rules, 2010 for absorption if subsequently no grant-in-aid was being received for such posts or whether

[2023:RJ-JD:37066] (3 of 5) [CW-17655/2021]

only employees currently working against posts sanctioned and which were receiving grant-in-aid from the Central Government can be considered for such absorption. The case of the petitioners is that they constitute one homogeneous class with employees in the government aided schools working on sanctioned posts funded by grant-in-aid prior to 2008.Subsequently, however, the respondent-Institute appears to have taken a policy decision not to apply and receive grant-in-aid against the sanctioned posts from the State Government. It is submitted that the pre 2008 homogeneousclass is sought to be treated differently for the reason of the Management Committee of the petitioner's school resolving not to take grant-in-aid effective 01.04.2008 which was beyond the control of the petitioners and the variation is entailing a non-consideration of the petitioners by the State Government for the absorption under the Rules, 2010. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the words "which is receiving aid" from the State Government, in Rule 2(k) of the Rules, 2010 and the words "who is working" again staided and sanctioned posts in schools 2(g) of the Rules,2010 ought to be interpreted and read liberally in the context of the object of Rules, 2010 also to include institutes and the sanctioned posts therein in respect whereof grant-in-aid was being received in an earlier point of time and subsequently discontinued as in the case of the petitioners for reasons of the decision of the Managing

[2023:RJ-JD:37066] (4 of 5) [CW-17655/2021]

Committee of the institute not to further reply for grant-in-aid under the Act of 1989.

The submissions of the counsel for the petitioners are for an equitable and purposive interpretation of the Rules, 2010 with reference of the object of the Rules.

This is a matter which the State Government ought to consider in the first instance. The petitioners in fact may be justified in submitting that as their school in which they were appointed received grant- in-aid for a longtime and more particularly on the sanctioned posts to which they came to be appointed, the State Government ought to consider their case for absorption under the Rules, 2010. I am thus of the view that the petitioners ought to make a detailed representation to the Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner setting out the relevant facts along with a certified copy of this order. On such representation being submitted, the Director Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner shall pass a reasoned order thereon within a period of four weeks of the submission of such representation.