Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Pratap Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:17054) on 2 April, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:17054]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1186/2020

1.       Pratap Ram S/o Sava Ram, Aged About 53 Years, B/c
         Meghwal, R/o Village Pal, Post Kuda, Tehsil Raniwara,
         District Jalor.
2.       Mishra Ram S/o Jaga Ram, Aged About 44 Years, B/c
         Meghwal, R/o Village And Post Kuda, Tehsil Raniwara,
         District Jalore.
3.       Bechra Ram S/o Kala Ram, Aged About 30 Years, B/c
         Dewasi, R/o Village Mandardi, Post Gang, Tehsil Raniwara,
         District Jalor.
4.       Peer Singh S/o Sardar Singh, Aged About 37 Years, B/c
         Rajput, R/o Village Shivnagar Hadusan, Post Bawarla,
         Tehsil Sanchor, District Jalore.
5.       Bharatpuri S/o Bhanwarpuri, Aged About 38 Years, B/c
         Goswami, R/o 108, Well, Navi Bhetala, Tehsil Raniwara,
         District Jalore.
6.       Bheem Singh S/o Sawai Singh, Aged About 55 Years, B/c
         Rajput, R/o Village Biroliya, Tehsil Bali, District Pali.
7.       Virendra Kumar S/o Mana Ram, Aged About 40 Years, B/c
         Meena, R/o Meeno Ka Vas, Bangari, Tehsil Sumerpur,
         District Pali.
8.       Lala Ram S/o Dharma Ram, Aged About 38 Years, B/c, R/
         o Village Maldar, Tehsil Bali, District Pali.
9.       Phoola Ram Meena S/o Chhoga Ram, Aged About 42
         Years, B/c Meena, R/o Village Sendla, Tehsil Bali, District
         Pali.
10.      Uttam Kumar S/o Tola Ram, Aged About 37 Years, B/c
         Mali, R/o Village Koselav, Tehsil Sumerpur, District Pali.
11.      Moti Ram S/o Rama Ram, Aged About 53 Years, B/c, R/o
         Village Chimanpura Post Chamunderi, Tehsil Bali, District
         Pali.
12.      Durga Prasad S/o Mangi Lal, Aged About 37 Years, B/c
         Vaishnav, R/o Village Bedal, Via Falna, Tehsil Bali, District
         Pali.
13.      Manchha Ram S/o Joma Ram, Aged About 46 Years, R/o
         Paota Colony, Paota, Jalor, District Jalor.
14.      Vachna Ram S/o Goma Ram, Aged About 46 Years, R/o


                      (Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 04:35:39 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:17054]                   (2 of 5)                        [CW-1186/2020]


         Paota Colony, Paota, Jalor, District Jalor.
15.      Pokar Ram S/o Pura Ram, Aged About 46 Years, R/o
         Virampura, Rebariyan, Post Desuri, District Pali.
16.      Rupchandra S/o Bhanwar Lal Ji, Aged About 42 Years, R/o
         Village- Chhoda, Tehsil- Desuri, District Pali.
17.      Nathu Singh Rathore S/o Dungar Singh Rathore, Aged
         About 42 Years, R/o Virampura, Post Desuri, District Pali.
18.      Basa Ram S/o Moti Ram, Aged About 41 Years, R/o
         Village- Ubari, Pani, Bhimana Tehsil- Bali, District- Pali.
19.      Jamuna Devasi S/o Sava Ram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
         Village- Barli Guwadi, Tehsil- Desuri District- Pali.
20.      Umaram S/o Hama Ram, Aged About 46 Years, R/o
         Virampura, Post Desuri, District Pali.
21.      Himta Ram S/o Jepa Ji, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Rasiya
         Was Khurd, Post Palasiya Kalla, Tehsil- Ahore, District -
         Jalore.
                                                                   ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Primary
         Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
         (Raj.).
2.       Rajasthan School Education Council, 2 Flour, Block No. 5,
         Dr. Radhakrishna Shiksha Sankul Premises, Jawahar Lal
         Nehru Marg, Jaipur (Raj.).
3.       Director, Department Of Elementary Education, Bikaner
         (Raj.).
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     None.
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Himmat Singh.


               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Order (Oral)

02/04/2025

1. The petition was filed sometime in 2020, inter-alia, seeking

issuance of appropriate writ, order and / or direction commanding

[2025:RJ-JD:17054] (3 of 5) [CW-1186/2020]

the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioners and

regularize them on the post of Instructor.

2. When called out for hearing, none appears for the

petitioners. It appears that by sheer passage of time, the nature

of relief sought by the petitioners is rendered stale and

meaningless and/or otherwise they seem to have acquiesced to

their fait accompli and moved on in life for greener pastures. That

is why perhaps, there is no representation on behalf of the

petitioners.

3. Apart from that, the relevant stand taken by the respondents

in their reply is reproduced herein-below:-

"3. That the petitioners have tried to mislead the Hon'ble Court by showing themselves to be employee of the Lok Jumbish Parishad, whereas as evident by the documents annexed by the petitioners themselves it is abundantly clear that they volunteered themselves to render services for a fixed honorarium, but the notification dated 08.01.2020 is with respect to persons rendering services to the Lok Jumbish on direct contract basis, since long and as completion of the said project they were continuously rendering services to Rajasthan Council of Elementary Education (Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan) and then to Rajasthan Council of School Education continuously on yearly contract basis, for which documents are verified from time to notification time dated accordingly 08.01.2020 the was issued. Thus the petitioner who were volunteered for just 2 years in no eventuality can equate their cases with the persons continuously rendering services on yearly contract basis, as such unnecessarily approached the Hon'ble High Court by way of instant writ petition.

4. That the bare perusal of the experience certificates enclosed with the writ petition shows that all the petitioners were engaged as Volunteer during the year 2002-2004, whereas the Rajasthan Council of School Education has issued notification verification of the for documents pertaining to the employees rendering services continuously. on yearly contract basis throughout. It is thus clear that the Council has not invited fresh applications or verification of documents of the incumbents, who rendered services to the Lok Jumbish at any point of time, rather conscious decision was taken in the year 2004 by the Rajasthan Council of Elementary Education that the incumbents rendering services to the Lok Jumbish on Parishad direct contract may be permitted to render services with the subsequent project too every on yearly contract basis, thus incumbent had to submit the contract with the Rajasthan Council of Elementary Education throughout these years to render services on yearly contract basis. Thereafter the project Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan has also

[2025:RJ-JD:17054] (4 of 5) [CW-1186/2020]

come to an end and a new project Samgra Shiksha has been launched by the State Government under the directions of the Government of India and a different council has been formed in the name of Rajasthan Council of School Education and the present council now has issued the notification on 08.01.2020 for verification of documents of the incumbents rendering services to the Rajasthan Council of Elementary Education throughout these years. Thus the petitioners who rendered services as Volunteers to the Rajasthan Council of Elementary Education between the year 2002-2004 in no case can claim right of consideration to render services on contract basis. As a matter of fact the Rajasthan Council of School Education has been formed after amalgamation different councils i.e. of 2 Rajasthan Council of Elementary Education and the Rajasthan Council of Secondary Education as per the directions of the Central Government in order to achieve the objects of education up to the entire school education, for which a project in the name of Samgra Siksha Abhiyan has been launched after having seen the results of the newly launched project in State the of Kerala, Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand. The major objects of the project run under the Rajasthan Council of School Education is to impart quality education and enhancing the standard outcome of students, building, social gender gaps in school education ensuring equity and inclusion at all school level education, ensuring minimum provisions in school education and support states in implementation of Right of Children in Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the Rajasthan Council of School Education being registered under the Society Registration Act as admitted by the petitioners, and time bound projects undertaken by it, at all are not within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Merely because the functions and objects of council are connected with the school education, the council does not come within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. However so far the pertaining issue to maintainability of the writ petition is concerned the same has never been decided by the Hon'ble High Court. As a matter of fact initially in the case of Babu Lal & Ors. V/s State of Rajasthan & Ors. the Hon'ble Court passed an order way back 30.07.1997 that the Rajasthan Council for Primary Education is not maintainable and the same was challenged before the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court, which upheld the Single Bench judgment vide the order dated 27.08.1998, thereafter another writ petition preferred by one Zebunissha and the Single Bench while relying upon the another judgment delivered in the case of Kailash Verma & Ors. V/s State (CWP No. 4762/89) which was pertaining to a project known as Shiksha Karmi Board and as such the writ petition against the Lok Jumbish run by the Raj Council of Elementary Education dismissed the same, against which special appeal was preferred but the Division Bench, while taking contrary view held that the Lok Jumbish is within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, however the Rajasthan Council of Primary Education preferred Special Leave Appeal, which was remanded back to adjudicate the issue of maintainability and the same is still pending and as such the writ petition is not maintainable. Besides this an important judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court covering the same issue Lieutenant Governor Delhi & Ors. of V/s V.K. Sodi & Ors. reported with (20070 15 SCC 136 was not considered, wherein it was observed that for the purpose of ascertaining the legal question as to whether Education, State the Research Council and of Training (SCERT) falls

[2025:RJ-JD:17054] (5 of 5) [CW-1186/2020]

under Article 12 of the Constition of India and held that the question has to be determined with reference to the function of SCERT, Rules and by Laws and its financial position. It was further observed that the SCERT was set up under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and its functioning was "regulated by its Act, rather than by the Government. In the present matter also the Rajasthan Council of Elementary Education is being governed by its own constitution and the same has been formed by a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1958, as such the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this count alone."

4. No further affidavit and/or rejoinder has been filed to

controvert the above. I am in agreement with the aforesaid stand

taken by the respondents in their reply.

5. Dismissed.

6. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(ARUN MONGA),J 95-DhananjayS/Rmathur/-