Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
The State Of Rajasthan vs Sudhir Kumar Nath ... on 18 November, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:49730-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 520/2025
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Education (Secondary, Primary And
Language), Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director, Directorate
Of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Sudhir Kumar Nath S/o Rameshwar Lal, Aged About 54
Years, Resident Of 53, Hari Om Nagar, Ward No. 3,
Nandanwan, Jodhpur-342008, Rajasthan.
2. Shanker Lal Solanki S/o Ratan Lal, Aged About 50 Years,
Resident Of Vidhya Nagar, Jaitaran, District- Pali.
3. Chutra Ram, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of 30
Mahadev Nagar, Basani First Phase, Jodhpur.
4. Om Prakash Deval S/o Ranchor Ram Charan, Aged About
51 Years, Resident Of 302 Ashapurna City, Pal Road,
Jodhpur.
5. Jetha Ram S/o Jagmal Ram, Aged About 42 Years,
Resident Of 23-C-94, Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur.
6. Pukhraj S/o Ram Narayan, Aged About 43 Years, Resident
Of Near Bus Station, Village Falka Kallan, District- Pali.
7. Pooran Singh Chandawat S/o Nathu Singh, Aged About 57
Years, Resident Of Village- Ghorawar, District- Pali.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sajjan Singh Rathore, AAG.
For Respondent(s) : ---
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
18/11/2025
1. The matter comes up on the application under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act.
(Uploaded on 18/11/2025 at 03:13:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49730-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-520/2025]
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing
the appeal is condoned. The application is allowed.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the State has pointed out that
the impugned order dated 22.08.2024 was passed disposing of
the writ petition in light of the order passed in SBCWP
No.15470/2022 (Vausdev Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and
connected petitions. Learned counsel has also pointed out that
D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.544/2024 (State of Rajasthan Vs.
Vasudev) and other connected appeals, relating to other various
writ petitioners, came up before a Coordinate Bench of this Court
and the Coordinate Bench vide its judgment dated 03.12.2024
allowed the appeals and set aside the order passed by the learned
Single Judge. In view thereof, he submits that the present appeal
also deserves to be allowed.
4. We have considered the submission and perused the
judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench.
5. We do not find any reason to differ from the aforesaid
judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench, wherein provisions of
Rule 24(3) of the Service Rules were considered and it was held as
under:-
"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
(Uploaded on 18/11/2025 at 03:13:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49730-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-520/2025]
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
may be 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 Rule
24 (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
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."
6. In view of the above, we allow this appeal mutatis mutandis.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACJ
22-a.asopa/-
(Uploaded on 18/11/2025 at 03:13:58 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
