Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Priyanka vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:24137) on 27 May, 2024
[2024:RJ-JD:24137]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8913/2021
Priyanka D/o Shri Parma Nand, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Ghamandia, Tehsil- Suratgarh, Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Education
Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The Director, Secondary Education Department
Rajasthan Bikaner.
3. Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jodhpur.
4. District Education Officer Secondary Education, Jodhpur
(Raj.)
5. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer
(Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : None Present
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sarvan Kumar
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Judgment (Oral)
27/05/2024
1. Petitioner herein, inter alia, is seeking directions to the
respondents to regularize her services from the date of
entitlement, i.e., 20.04.2018, with all consequential benefits along
with interest.
2. Briefly speaking, the relevant facts as pleaded are that the
respondent RPSC issued an advertisement for the post of Senior
Teacher, Social Science. The petitioner belongs to the OBC
(Female) category and was selected in the examination.
2.1. By letter dated 27.09.2018, the petitioner was allotted the
Churu Division. Subsequently, the respondent Deputy Director
issued an appointment order dated 20.04.2018 (Annex.3) to the
[2024:RJ-JD:24137] (2 of 4) [CW-8913/2021]
petitioner, posting her as Senior Teacher, Social Science at GUPS,
Bhinwsar, PS Sardarshahar, District Churu.
2.2. The petitioner joined her duty, and the joining report dated
21.04.2015 is marked as Annexure-4.
2.3. The respondent reshuffled the result and allotted districts to
candidates. The respondents allotted Jodhpur Division to the
petitioner by order dated 26.07.2020, with a joining order dated
30.07.2020.
2.4. The probation period of the petitioner got over on
21.04.2020, and the respondent confirmed the petitioner's
services by order dated 29.06.2020. However, same withdrawn
the next day, i.e., 30.06.2020 (Annexure-6).
2.5. The petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents,
praying for confirmation of service and pay fixation, but the
respondents did not pay any heed to the representation
(Annex.7).
2.6. The respondents have discriminated against the petitioner
compared to other similarly situated candidates. The respondents
accorded pay fixation to other candidates at Sr. No.6 and 20 by
orders dated 13.07.2020 and 28.07.2020 (Annex.8), but did not
do the same for the petitioner. Hence, this petition.
3. The defense taken in the reply is that by Annex.6, it is evident
that the order relating to the completion of the probation period
by the petitioner was withdrawn. By Annex.7, the petitioner claims
that after the cancellation of her selection, she remained in service
on account of an ad-interim order of the Court. However, no such
ad-interim order has been produced on record by the petitioner,
[2024:RJ-JD:24137] (3 of 4) [CW-8913/2021]
nor are the particulars of the writ petition mentioned in the
representation (Annex.7). Hence, the writ petition deserves
dismissal.
4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions
and gone through the case file.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the respondents and after
perusal of the court file, it transpires that the break in the service
of the petitioner is not attributable to her, as it resulted from
circumstances arising out of the revision of the selection process
results. In 2018, pursuant to the revised result, she was not found
in the merit list. However, subsequently, another revision of the
result took place in 2020, and as luck would have it, this time the
petitioner found her name in the list of successful candidates and
was taken back into service.
6. In the peculiar premise, the petitioner cannot be put to double
jeopardy, as she had to remain out of a job between the first
revision of the result and the second revision for no fault of hers.
When she was taken back, she was not given the benefit of
confirmation in service from the initial date of appointment, unlike
her counterparts who remained on the list of successful candidates
in both the first and second revisions of the result.
7. Resultantly, the claim of the petitioner to accord her the benefit
of confirmation in service has to be allowed with effect from
24.04.2018, the date of her initial appointment before the pre-
revised result.
[2024:RJ-JD:24137] (4 of 4) [CW-8913/2021]
8. It is, however, made clear that the petitioner shall be entitled
only to the notional benefits of seniority etc. and for the period
she did not serve, she is not entitled to any financial benefits.
9. With these observations, petition is disposed of.
10. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
138-AnilKC/-
Whether Fit for Reporting - Yes / No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
