Aasin Mohammed vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

On 06.01.2020, when the matter came up for admission, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgment dated 15.05.2017, rendered by

Jaipur Bench of this Court in SBCWP No.2456/2016, to contend that services of the petitioner cannot be dispensed with by the respondents, on the

ground that they have taken services of regular teachers on deputation.

It is to be noticed that when the matter came up for consideration, learned counsel did not inform the Court that the above referred order dated

15.05.2017, passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in SBCWP No.2456/2016 has already been substantially modified by the Division Bench vide

its order dated 20.03.2018 in the bunch of special appeals led by D.B. Special (Writ) No.1231/2017.

It is also to be noticed that the appeal against judgment dated 15.05.2017, rendered in SBCWP No.2456/2016, was also listed in the bunch of cases,

which were decided by the Division Bench vide its judgment dated 20.03.2018. It is to be noticed that the Division Bench, in the judgment dated

20.03.2018, when the Division Bench had permitted the services of the regularly selected candidates on deputation, which is evident from a bare

reading of Clause (ii) of the directions issued by the Division Bench. Clause (ii) is reproduced hereinfra:-

“(ii) The contractual employee can be replaced by regularly selected employee either under the scheme or by taking regularly selected employees

of the State Government on deputation. The deputation would however be not permissible if there is shortage of Teachers and others in the State

service and to make it clear, at the cost of sufferance of the school run by the State Government, deputation would not be permissible. Thus, the

direction given above would be applied after taking note of the aforesaid.â€​

Mr. Anil Gaur, learned AAG, appearing for the respondents, submitted that in view of the order dated 20.03.2018, passed by the Division Bench,

the respondent â€" State is fully justified in taking services of the regularly selected candidates on deputation.

In this regard, learned AAG further submitted that ‘No Objection Certificate’ has duly been obtained from the concerned department, whose

employees are being posted on deputation, while inviting Court’s attention towards Annex.A/4, appended with the impleadment application, filed

by Mr. Tayal.

This Court cannot but resist from recording displeasure about the approach of learned counsel Mr. Punia who has based his case upon the judgment

dated 15.05.2017, rendered in SBCWP No.2456/2016, without informing the Court that the same has been substantially modified by the Division

Bench vide its order dated 20.03.2018. Had he informed about Division Bench order, this Court would certainly not have granted interim order in his

favour.

It was also pointed out by Mr. Gaur, learned AAG, that identical writ petition filed (SBCWP No.100/2020) has already been dismissed by a

Coordinate Bench at Jaipur, vide its order dated 17.02.2020.

The Division Bench judgment will naturally hold field. This Court does not find any substance in the present writ petition, the same is hereby

dismissed, with a cost of Rs.10,000/-.

Petitioner to deposit the same in the Rajasthan Legal Services Authority at High Court by way of cash/Demand Draft by 28.02.2020. A copy of the

receipt be placed on the record of this case.

Though the matter stands disposed of, but the same will be listed before Registrar (Judicial), with a report as to whether the cost has been

deposited or not.

In case the cost is not deposited, the matter be laid before the Court at 2.00 p.m. on 18.03.2020.

The stay application also stands dismissed.