Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Meena Wadhwani vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:48552) on 11 November, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:48552]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12993/2021
Meena Wadhwani D/o Late Shri Jhangi Ram Wadhwani, Aged
About 59 Years, Resident Of House No. 328, Rathkhana Colony,
Bikaner (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The District Education Officer, Secondary Education,
Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gopal Sandu
For Respondent(s) : Mr. NK Mehta, Dy.G.C.
Mr. Bhupesh Charan
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
11/11/2025
1. The matter comes upon an application seeking early hearing
of the case.
2. For the reasons and grounds mentioned in the application,
the same is allowed.
3. In view of the consent of the learned counsel for the parties
and keeping in consideration the trivial nature of the issue
involved, the matter has been heard today itself.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
averments made in the writ petition as well as the reply thereto,
along with the documents annexed with the pleadings.
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 05:04:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48552] (2 of 9) [CW-12993/2021]
5. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner, after due
selection, was initially appointed on the post of Teacher Grade-III
vide order dated 24.10.1988 issued by the Development Officer,
Panchayat Samiti, Bikaner, and was posted at Government Primary
School, Meghasar, District Bikaner. Documents showing her name
in the selection list have been annexed with the writ petition, and
the said fact remains uncontroverted.
5.1 The petitioner joined her duties on 05.11.1988 under the
command and control of the respondent department and, ever
since, has been discharging her duties with due diligence and
sincerity. It is further pleaded that throughout her service tenure,
no complaint whatsoever was made regarding her work efficiency
or conduct.
5.2 Vide order dated 07.11.1997 (Annexure-3), issued by the
Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Bikaner, upon successful
completion of the probation period, the services of the petitioner
were regularized with effect from her initial date of appointment,
i.e., 05.11.1988. A perusal of Annexure-3 reveals the said fact,
which remained neither disputed nor denied during the course of
arguments.
6. The cause of action for the present petition arises from the
denial of selection grade benefits to the petitioner on completion
of 9, 18, and 27 years of service. The State Government, with a
view to remove the financial stagnation of its employees, issued a
circular dated 25.01.1992 directing that benefits of selection
grades upon completion of 9, 18, and 27 years of service be
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 05:04:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48552] (3 of 9) [CW-12993/2021]
extended to members of subordinate and Class IV services and
other similarly placed categories. It was further resolved therein
that where there exists no promotional post, the selection scale
shall be granted in the next higher pay scale corresponding to the
next promotional post.
7. The grievance of the petitioner is that though her services
were regularized with effect from 05.11.1988, she became entitled
to the first and second selection grades in the years 1997 and
2006 respectively. However, despite satisfactory service, the
respondents failed to grant such benefits from the date of her
initial appointment, and no cogent reason was ever assigned for
such denial. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a writ
petition before this Court being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
3733/2009 (Meena Wadhwani Vs. State of Rajasthan &
Ors.), which came to be allowed vide order dated 10.05.2013
with certain directions. For ready referece, the order dated
10.05.2013 is reproduced herein below:-
1. These writ petitions involving common questions of facts
and law, were heard together and are being disposed of by
this common order.
2. By way of these writ petitions, the petitioners holding
the post of Teacher in the schools run by various Panchayat
Samitees of Bikaner district, are seeking directions to the
respondents to release the benefits of Second Selection
Grade to them, in terms of Government order dated 25.1.92
on completion of 18 years of service.
3. The petitioners were appointed on the post of Teacher
vide different orders issued by Vikas Adhikari of Panchayat
Samiti concerned In the pay scale of Rs.880-1600 on
temporary basis for a period of six months or till the
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 05:04:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48552] (4 of 9) [CW-12993/2021]
regularly selected candidates are made available. The
petitioners were appointed as aforesaid after due selection
by Administrative Committee on their names being
sponsored by the Employment Exchange and the Assistant
Director, Social Welfare Department, Bikaner. The
petitioners were confirmed on the post of Teacher vide
different orders allegedly on the completion of the probation
period from the date of their initial appointment pursuant to
the decision taken by the Administrative Committee in its
meeting. The details of dates of initial appointment, the
date of confirmation as mentioned in the confirmation order
of the respective petitioners are summarised thus:
Sr. No. Name of the Date of of Date of order Pancha
petitioner Initial of yat
appointment confirmation Samiti
1. Jetha Ram 27.12.90 - Loonkar
Daawa ansar
2. Om Prakash 29.11.88 16.11.95 Bikaner
Mehgwal
3. Smt. Sushila 30.6.80 26.11.88 Bikaner
Rajput
4. Shokat Ali 15.3.88 25.3.92 Bikaner
5. Meena 29.10.88 7.11.97 Bikaner
Vadhwani
6. Kalu Ram 14.8.86 25.03.92 Bikaner
Pannu
7. Bhanwar Lal 9.9.88 2.12.02 Nokha
Prajapat
8. Puna Ram 9.9.88 -- Nokha
Jakhar
9. Smt. Neelam 8.4.88 29.5.97 Nokha
Gupta
10. Mohan Lal 24.11.88 29.5.97 Nokha
Raigar
11. Ummed 9.9.88 16.1.01 Nokha
Kumar
4. On completion of 9 years of satisfactory service, the
petitioners were granted First Selection Grade in terms o'
Government order dated 25.1.92. The petitioners become
eligible for grant of Second Selection Grade on completion
of 18 years of satisfactory service, however, the
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 05:04:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48552] (5 of 9) [CW-12993/2021]
respondents did not consider their candidature in terms of
the said Government order. Hence, these petitions.
5. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of
the respondents taking the stand that the Department of
Finance, Government of Rajasthan has issued an order
dated 29.6.09 clarifying that the period of service rendered
before regular appointment to the post in accordance with
the relevant recruitment rules shall not be counted for the
purpose of grant of Selection Grade in terms of Government
order dated 25.1.92 and therefore, the petitioners cannot
be granted Second Selection Grade inasmuch as, they have
not completed 18 years of service from the date of their
regular appointment. It is submitted that the controversy
involved in the Instant petitions stands covered by a
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Jagdish Narain
Chaturvedi (Civil Appeal No.3620/09) and other connected
SLPs preferred by the State Government against a Larger
Bench decision of this court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
petitioners have been confirmed on the post of Teacher from
the date of their initial appointment, they have to be treated
regular employee from the date of their initial appointment
and therefore, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi's case (supra) is not
applicable on the facts of the present case. Learned counsel
submitted that the date of Initial appointment of the
petitioners and the date of confirmation of their services
being not different, for the purpose of grant of Selection
Grade in terms of the Government order dated: 25.1.92,
their entire period of service has to be counted. Learned
counsel submitted that taking the date of regular
appointment of the petitioners to be their initial date of
appointment, the respondents have already granted First
Selection Grade to the petitioners and therefore, at this
stage, they cannot deny the Second Selection Grade to the
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 05:04:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48552] (6 of 9) [CW-12993/2021]
petitioners on the premise that their services prior to the
date of confirmation order, shall not be counted.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents reiterating the stand taken in the reply to the
writ petitions as aforesaid, submitted that the confirmation
of the petitioners services was preceded by temporary
service on ad hoc basis and therefore, their services prior to
passing of the confirmation order cannot be counted for the
purpose of grant of Selection Grade. Relying upon the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Narain
Chaturvedi's case (supra), learned counsel submitted
that for the purpose of grant of Selection Scale of pay while
reckoning the required length of service, the period of ad
hoc service has to be excluded. Accordingly, it is submitted
that the respondents' decision not to grant Second Selection
Grade to the petitioners cannot be faulted with inasmuch as,
the period of service rendered by the petitioners before
regular appointment to the post, in accordance with the
relevant recruitment rules, shall not be counted for grant of
Selection Grade.
8. I have considered the rival submissions and perused
the material on record and the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi's case
(supra).
9. In view of the Hon'ble Suprerne Court's decision in
Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi's case (supra) and other
earlier decisions, there remains no quarrel with the
preposition that for the purpose of grant of Selection Grade,
the services rendered by an employee on ad hoc basis
before regular appointment to the post in accordance with
the relevant recruitment rules, has to be excluded, while
reckoning the required length of service. But, then, in the
instant cases, indisputably, the petitioners have been
confirmed on the post of Teacher pursuant to the decision of
the competent authority from the date of their initial
appointment. It is not in dispute that for all intent and
purposes the petitioners have been treated to be regular
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 05:04:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48552] (7 of 9) [CW-12993/2021]
employees from the date of their initial appointment and for
this reason, on completion of 9 years of service, they have
already been granted First Selection Grade in terms of
Government order dated 25.1.92. Once, the respondents
have confirmed the services of the, petitioners from the
date of their initial appointment, the same has to be treated
to be the date of their regular appointment for reckoning
the required length of service for the purpose of grant of
Selection Grades in terms of the Government order dated
25.1.92. In this view of the matter, the decision of the Hon
'ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi's case
(supra) and the Government order dated 29.6.09 issued
pursuant thereto, cannot be applied to the facts of the
present cases. The petitioners are entitled for consideration
of their candidature for grant of Second Selection Grade on
completion of 18 years of service while reckoning the
required length of service from the date of their
confirmation i.e. the date of initial appointment.
10. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. The
respondents are directed to consider the petitioners'
candidature for grant of Second Selection Grade in terms of
Government order dated 25.1.92 while reckoning the
required length of service from the date of their Initial
appointment, which has been taken to be the date of their
confirmation in service. The entire exercise pursuant to this
order shall be completed by the respondents within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this order. No order as to costs."
8. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions of the Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court in order dated 10.05.2013, the respondents were
under a legal obligation to comply with the order in its true letter
and spirit. However, the same having not been done, the
petitioner was constrained to file Contempt Petition No.
222/2014 (Meena Wadhwani Vs. Srimath Pandey & Ors.).
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 05:04:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48552] (8 of 9) [CW-12993/2021]
During pendency of the contempt proceedings, the District
Education Officer (Elementary Education), Bikaner, issued an order
dated 01.08.2015 granting the petitioner the benefits of first and
second selection grades on completion of 9 and 18 years of
service reckoned from the date of her initial appointment, i.e.,
from the years 1997 and 2006 respectively.
9. Upon availing the benefits of 9 and 18 years of satisfactory
service, the petitioner became entitled to the third selection grade
on completion of 27 years of service in the year 2015. Accordingly,
the Principal, Government Girls Senior Secondary School,
Laxminath Ghati, Bikaner, forwarded her case to the respondent
No.3 for grant of the said benefit. However, the recommendation
was declined on the sole ground that the earlier judgment of the
Co-ordinate Bench did not specifically mention the third selection
grade, and therefore, the same could not be extended. A perusal
of Annexures-4 and 5 reveals that the only reason for denial was
the absence of an express reference to the third selection grade in
the judgment referred supra.
10. As a matter of fact, once the services of the petitioner were
regularized with effect from 05.11.1988, and such date has
already been taken into account by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court for computing her service tenure for the purpose of granting
9 and 18 years benefits, there remains no legal impediment for
extending the third selection grade on completion of 27 years of
continuous, satisfactory service. The petitioner cannot be
compelled to approach this Court for every phase of benefit which
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 05:04:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48552] (9 of 9) [CW-12993/2021]
naturally flows from the same factual matrix. The only ground
available to the respondents for denial could have been
unsatisfactory performance during service tenure, which is
admittedly not the case herein. The action of the respondent
department, therefore, stands in clear breach of the principles of
law, justice, and fair play, and reflects a highly pedantic and
mechanical approach, which cannot be countenanced by this
Court.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition succeeds
and is hereby allowed. The impugned letter dated 03.07.2017
issued by respondent No.3 and the letter dated 02.05.2018 issued
by the Principal, Government Girls Senior Secondary School,
Laxminath Ghati, Bikaner, are quashed and set aside.
12. The respondent authorities are directed to consider the case
of the petitioner in light of the law laid down by the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in Meena Wadhwani Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3733/2009)
decided on 10.05.2013 along with bunch of similar writ petitions
and grant to the petitioner the benefit of third selection grade on
completion of 27 years of service counting from the date of her
initial appointment, i.e., 05.11.1988, together with all
consequential benefits.
(FARJAND ALI),J
35-divya/-
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 05:04:57 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
