Mukesh Kasana vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8657 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:35706]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9253/2019

1. Mukesh Kasana S/o Shri Babu Lal, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Govt. Senior Secondary School, Mahajan, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan (Presently Working As Vocational Trainer).

2. Rachana Bansal W/o Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta,, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Govt. Senior Secondary School, Liwali, Sawai Madhopur, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan (Presently Working As Vocational Trainer).

3. Jitendra Kumar Bansal S/o Nemi Chand Bansal,, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Govt Senior Secondary School, Mahu Kalan, Sawai Madhopur, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan (Presently Working As Vocational Trainer).

4. Vijendra Singh S/o Shri Surendra Singh,, Aged About 31 Years, C/o Govt. Sr. Sec. School, Dhamun Kalan, Sawai Madhopur, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan (Presently Working As Vocational Trainer).

5. Hans Raj Yogi S/o Shri Mahaveer Nath,, Aged About 22 Years, C/o Govt. Sr. Sec. School, Amawara, Sawai Madhopur, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan (Presently Working As Vocational Trainer).

6. Amit Kumar Karsolia S/o Shri Shree Lal Karsoliya,, Aged About 28 Years, C/o Govt. Senior Secondary School, Mahu Kalan, Sawai Madhopur, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan (Presently Working As Vocational Trainer).

7. Rajesh Meena S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Meena,, Aged About 28 Years, C/o Govt. Senior Secondary School, Chauth Ka Barwara, Sawai Madhopur, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan (Presently Working As Vocational Trainer).

8. Ajeet Kumar Dhakar S/o Shri Mahadev Prasad,, Aged About 25 Years, C/o Govt. Girls Senior Secondary School, Khandar, Sawai Madhopur, District Sawai Madhopur Rajasthan (Presently Working As Vocational Trainer).

9. Aruna Pareek D/o Shri Ghanshyam Pareek,, Aged About 33 Years, C/o Govt. Girls Senior Secondary School, Kapasan, Chittorgarh, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan (Presently Working As Vocational Trainer).

[2023:RJ-JD:35706] (2 of 4) [CW-9253/2019]

----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 Coordinator, Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

6. The Chief District Education Officer And Ex-Officio District Project Coordinator, Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan.

7. The Chief District Education Officer And Ex-Officio District Project Coordinator, Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan, District Chittogarh, Rajasthan.

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :    Mr. Deepak Jangid
For Respondent(s)           :    Mr. PRS Jodha



                      JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                      Order

18/10/2023

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

controversy in question has been decided in S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.10843/2019: Seema Gupta & Ors. Vs. Union of

India & Ors.

[2023:RJ-JD:35706] (3 of 4) [CW-9253/2019]

2. Learned counsel for the respondents are not in a position to

dispute the aforesaid position of facts and law.

3. The relevant part of the order in Seema Gupta (supra) reads

thus:-

"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 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."

4. Mr. PRS Jodha, learned counsel for the respondent submitted

that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of Seema

[2023:RJ-JD:35706] (4 of 4) [CW-9253/2019]

Gupta (supra) be allowed to the petitioners only if they are

continuing with the respondents as of today and if their

engagement has been discontinued prior to the present date, they

be not given benefit of the order passed in the case of Seema

Gupta (supra).

5. Submission made by learned counsel Mr. PRS Jodha appears

to be reasonable.

6. Following the adjudication made in case of Seema Gupta

(supra), the petition is disposed of and the respondents are

directed to follow the directions given in case of Seema Gupta

(supra), if the petitioners are still continuing with them.

7. Stay application also stand disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 491-Mak/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)