AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Learned counsel for the appellant states that as regards relief granted to the respondent by the learned Single Judge the State has no grievance.
The grievance relates to observations made by the learned Single Judge as under:-
“In the opinion of this Court when matter has been adjudicated by Division Bench of this Court in case of Deepak Bhardwaj (supra) and selections
are held to be in consonance with law then the University cannot deny the benefit of regularization/ confirmation and pay-scale to the selected
candidates while taking shelter of order dated 15.4.2015 because the Joint Secretary, Govt. of Rajasthan who has written the letter dated 15.4.2015 is
not higher than the Division Bench of this Court delivered the judgments and held that the selections are in consonance with law, therefore, the order
dated 15.4.2015 has loose its sanctity for all purpose and became redundant after adjudication made by the Division Bench of this Court with regard to
selection process process in which petitioner and other candidates were selected in pursuance of advertisement Annexure-1. The University is a
statutory body, therefore, the University is duty bound to comply the terms and conditions of the appointment order made in favour of the selected
candidates because the selection has already already been declared declared valid by the Division Bench of this Court.
In view of above now when the matter has already been adjudicated by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case of Deepak Bhardwaj (supra)
and other connected matters, the selected candidates are entitled for regularization/ confirmation as well as pay-scale on completion of probation
period, therefore, it is held that denial of confirmation/ regularization and pay-scale to the selected candidates in pursuance of advertisement
NO.74/2011-12 is totally illegal, unconstitutional and contrary to the basic principles of law. In view of above, this writ petition is hereby allowed and
the respondent University is directed to grant confirmation/ regularization and pay-scale to the petitioner prescribed for the post of Assistant Professor
(English) as per terms and conditions of the appointment order dated 13.2.2013 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy
of this order.â€
To understand the grievance of the appellant suffice it to note that appointments made in different disciplines in Jai Narayan Vyas University,
Jodhpur came under a scanner and the respondent is one such person adversely affected being appointed as Assistant Professor (English) on
probation for two years. Placed in the pay band of Rs.15600-39100/- with grade pay of 6,000/- on Rs. probation for a period of two years, fixed salary
in a sum of ₹18,200/- for the first year and 24,000/- for the second year was Rs. paid. In a decision pronounced in D.B.Civil Writ Petition
No.2963/2007, Gopal Kumawat Vs. State of Rajasthan, a Division Bench of this Court held that a person who faces the selection process for being
appointed against a sanctioned notified vacancy, if kept on probation, would be entitled to get salary as per scale and not the fixed salary.
Further grievance of the respondent was that in spite of having completed two years probation she was not being paid salary in the pay-scale.
The facts get a little fussy here but it appears that the University was not paying salary in the applicable scale on account of the fact that the
appointments came under a scanner.
It is in context that the observations of the learned Single Judge have relevance. In the writ filed, the FIR was quashed and we are informed that
against the said decision petition seeking leave to appeal filed before the Supreme Court in which the order passed by this Court was stayed and
investigation was permitted to be continued.
We have asked learned counsel for the parties whether during investigation it has been found that the appointment of the respondent was tainted.
Learned counsel states that till now the appointment of the respondent has not been found to be tainted.
Thus, the observations made by the learned Single Judge against which the grievance has been made need to be expunged for the reason the
learned Single Judge did not note that the Supreme Court has stayed the order passed by this Court quashing the FIR and has permitted investigation
to continue.
8. Thus, the observations by the learned Single Judge being quashed would require this Court i.e. Division Bench to direct that the final direction
issued by the learned Single Judge shall be complied with sans the observations made by the learned Single Judge for the facts which we have noted
hereinabove.
The appeal is disposed of.Â