AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner is in continuous appointment on the post of Prabodhak since 04.11.2011 up till today i.e. 09.05.2018.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been given appointment arising out of the following judgments passed by this
Hon’ble Court :
Anna Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8800/2010):
“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Before filing this writ petition, earlier writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.746/2009 was filed by the petitioner seeking appointment on the
post of Prabodhak, in which, the following directions were issued vide judgment dated 22.2.2010:
“(i) Respondents are directed to first prepare list of writ petitions whose applications were received by the respondents in respective districts and
who were not called for interview for the reasons that there was summer break result in discontinue of experience for five years, or experience
certificate has not been verified, may be called for interview and this experience be completed within two months; and simultaneously, petitioners may
also contact the office of the concerned authority; and
(ii) Such of the petitioners who are not found to be eligible for anyother reason, may be assigned and communicated to each of them, to which if he
feels aggrieved will be free to avail of remedy under the law.
(iii) After completion of exercise referred to in para (I) and (ii) (supra),further process be initiated for finalizing merit list of respective district and such
petitioners may be considered for appointment if find place in order of merit in their respective district against advertised vacancies incuding those duly
revised by subsequent corrigendum to advertisement dated 31.05.2008, within a period of three months thereafter in accordance with Rules, 2008 and
in the light of judgments of this Court (supra).â€
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after decision of the aforesaid writ petition, so many persons having lessor percentage of marks were
provided appointment ignoring the petitioner’s claim though he is higher in merit than those persons, who were given appointment. As per facts,
the name of the petitioner is appearing at serial No.1069 in the merit list preapred by the District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Udaipur
and in the last column, it is observed that the petitioner secured 45% marks. It is admitted that appointments have been provided to the candidates who
secured 34.67% marks in the Scheduled Caste category.
No reply has been filed by the respondent-State but it is admitted before the Court that appointments have been provided to the candidates having
lessor percentage of the marks than the petitioner.
In this view of the matter, the District Education Officer, (Elementary Education) Udaipur is directed to provide appointment to the petitioner
forthwith. It is made clear that the petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits from the date when the candidates having lessor percentage
of marks than the petitioner, were provided appointment including seniority, fixation of pay and salary. The compliance of this order shall be made
within a period of one week from the receipt of certified copy of this order.â€
Anna Ram Vs. Smt. Meena Pradhan & Anr. (S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.512/2011):
The present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner for thealleged wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court dated 15.04.2011
deciding the writ petition, whereby the following direction was given:
“In this view of the matter, the District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Udaipur is directed to provide appointment to the petitioner
forthwith. It is made clear that the petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits from the date when the candidates having lessor percentage
of marks than the petitioner, were provided appointment including seniority, fixation of pay and salary. The compliance of this order shall be made
within a period of one week from the receipt of certified copy of this order.â€
Mr. N.M. Lodha, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. V.D. Dadhich, fairlysubmits that the petitioner has since been appointed as Prabodhak,
therefore, part compliance of the order passed by this Court has been made, however, he submits that consequential benefits have not been given to
the petitioner. He also submitted that the petitioner would give-up the monetary benefits arising to him before the date of actual joining upon his
appointment provided the respondents-contemnors give him the consequential benefits of notional seniority and fixation of pay from the date when the
juniors persons having lesser merit, were given appointment in terms of aforesaid order dated 15.04.2011.
Mr. Rajesh Bhati, Advocate on behalf of Mr. R.L. Jangid fairly submits thatthe respondents will pass appropriate orders for grant of consequential
notional benefits viz. seniority and fixation of pay within a period of six weeks from today but no monetary benefits will be paid to the petitioner before
the date of his actual appointment.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is not inclined toproceed further with the present contempt petition against the
respondentscontemnors.
Accordingly, the present contempt petition is dismissed and notices aredischarged. If the assured benefit of notional seniority and fixation of pay is
not given to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today, the petitioner will be at liberty to approach this Court again by way of fresh
contempt petition and a serous view of the same may be taken by the Court. Necessary compliance report shall be filed by the respondents in this
Court also within a period of six weeks from today.â€
However, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the issue is no more res-integra in view of the judgment passed by this Court in Vipin Kumar
Upadhyaya Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14134/2017) decided on 26.04.2018.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has refuted the applicability of the judgment on account of the fact that there has been a
manipulation in the marks so awarded to the petitioner though the same is not attributed to the petitioner.
In light of the judgment rendered in Vipin Kumar Upadhyaya (supra), the writ petition is allowed with direction to the respondents to deal with the
petitioner’s case as per the second category in the aforementioned judgment and accordingly respondents shall continue the petitioner on the same
terms as he is already in continuous service for about 10 years.