Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Sampat Ram (2025:Rj-Jd:2929-Db) on 16 January, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:2929-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 99/2025
1. State of Rajasthan, through The Secretary, Department of
Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan
----Appellants
Versus
Mamta Chauhan W/o Bhagwan Prakash Chauhan, R/o 257-258,
Chitrakoot Nagar, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 100/2025
1. State of Rajasthan, through The Secretary, Department of
Secondary Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. Isha Gupta, Working on the Post of Lecturer (School
Education), Govt. Senior Secondary School, Ward No. 17,
Suratgarh, Ganganagar.
4. Neeru Kumar, Working on the Post of Lecturer (School
Education), Govt. Senior Secondary School, Badopral
Barani, Blank Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.
5. Virendra Singh, Working on the Post of Lecturer (School
Education), Shahid Mor Singh Kajala, Govt. Senior
Secondary School Hardiya, Block Khetari, District
Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Sampat Ram S/o Narayan Ram, aged about 35 Years, R/o
Malayo Ka Athuna Bas, Nagarpalika Road Ke Pass, Pipar
City, Jodhpur.
2. Om Prakash S/o Ranjeet Ram, aged about 35 Years, R/o
V/p Darmi, Via Ashop, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur.
3. Dharuram Mali S/o Jawari Lal, aged about 37 Years, R/o
V/p Madliya, Tehsil Pipar City, District Jodhpur.
4. Hansraj Meena S/o Jairam Meena, aged about 33 Years,
R/o Matlana Post Hodayali, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa.
5. Sarla Kanwar D/o Samarth Singh, aged about 41 Years,
(Downloaded on 16/01/2025 at 09:47:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:2929-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-99/2025]
R//o G-51, Mazdoor Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur.
6. Ombeer Singh, aged about 40 Years, R/o V/p
Shyourawali, Tehsil Egg, District Bharatpur.
7. Mahesh Kumar Yadav S/o Ram Lal Yadav, aged about 38
Years, R/o Village Niwana, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur.
8. Purshottam Sharma S/o Anandi Lal Sharma, aged about
40 Years, R/o Vilanderpur, Via Khejorli, Tehsil Shahpura,
Jaipur.
9. Parmod, aged about 33 Years, R/o A-3, Hanuman Nagar,
5-E Chotti, Sriganga Nagar.
10. Rajendra Kumar S/o Fateh Ram Meena, aged about 34
Years, R/o V/p Medi, Tehsil Wazirpur, District Sawai
Madhopur.
11. Shravan Singh Rajourohit S/o Kishore Singh, aged about
32 Years, R/o Madotaro Ka Vas, Village and Post Raythal,
Tehsil Ahore, District Jalore.
12. Satyapal Avasthi S/o Babu Lal Sharma, aged about 46
Years, R/o Vpo Khohara - Malawali, Tehsil Laxmangarh,
District Alwar.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. S. S. Ladrecha, AAG with
Mr. Deepak Suthar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.S. Saluja
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order
16/01/2025
1. Shri S.S. Ladrecha, learned Additional Advocate General
point out that these appeals are no longer res-integra and similar
appeals being D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.874/2024 [State
of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Ravi Kumar & Ors] alongwith
connected appeals have been allowed vide order dated
03.12.2024.
[2025:RJ-JD:2929-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-99/2025]
2. Learned counsel for the respondents is in tandem with the
aforesaid submission.
3. The operative portion of the judgment dated 03.12.2024
reads as follows: -
"19. Quite clearly, Rule 24 of the Service Rules of 1970
deals with the procedure for selection on the basis of
seniority-cum-merit. It provides that a list containing the
names not exceeding five times the number of vacancies
out of "senior-most persons" as mentioned in column 5
of the Schedule who are qualified under the rules for
promotion shall be prepared and the relevant records
including the confidential rolls and personal files shall be
sent to the Secretary to the Government in the
Education Department. Proviso to sub-rule (1) prescribes
preparation of two separate lists, one relating to the
teachers in Grade-II and the other for the teachers in
Grade-I. Under sub-rule (2), the Committee consisting of
the persons as provided thereunder shall consider the
cases of all persons included in the list and the
recommendation shall be made containing the names of
suitable candidates upto twice the number of vacant
posts. Under sub-rule (3), the Committee shall prepare a
separate list containing names of the persons who
maybe considered suitable to fill temporary or
permanent vacancies already existing or are likely to
occur till the next meeting of the Committee on a
temporary or officiating basis. The respondents who had
not even completed 5 years of service as Senior Teacher
were included in the list prepared for the purpose of
temporary or officiating promotion. To that extent, the
finding recorded by the writ Court that the respondents
were eligible for promotion and found suitable by the
DPC along with other Senior Teachers of the batch 2016-
17 is clearly contrary to the records. The respondents
had not completed the minimum length of service, that
is 5 years of service, as Senior Teacher as on the date
when the DPC was convened for promotion to the post of
School Lecturer under Rule24 (2) (a); or, as the records
reveal, two of them were not suitable at that time. They
were therefore granted promotion vide order dated 09th
July 2018 in the batch of 2018-19 after having attained
the eligibility and on completing the minimum length of
[2025:RJ-JD:2929-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-99/2025]
service. In these facts, we are of the considered opinion
that the Office Order dated 15th July 2016 was issued
under sub-rule (3) to Rule 24 of the Rajasthan Service
Rules and by virtue of that order the writ petitioners
cannot claim any vested right for promotion in the batch
of 2016-2017.
21. In the light of the discussions made and the
findings recorded hereinabove, these Special Appeals are
allowed and the judgment of the writ Court is set aside."
4. For the reasons mentioned in the application filed under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the delay in filing the present
appeals are hereby condoned.
5. In light of the limited submission, these appeals are also
allowed and the impugned order is quashed and set aside.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
101 & 102-Dharmendra Rakhecha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
