SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Raj) 1778

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Sandeep Mehta, J.
Babu Lal Meena & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 144 of 2015.
Decided On : 1-09-2015

For the Petitioner:Kuldeep Mathur and Dr. Nupur Bhati, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Rajesh Panwar, AAG a/w Mr. Sunil Joshi and Manish Patel, AGC.

The State is estopped from taking steps to de-sanction the remaining posts of L.D.Cs. against which the petitioners stand selected, as the petitioners have a legitimate expectation that their extension of joining time would be granted and that they could join the post of L.D.C. if they were unsuccessful in the subordinate services selection process.

Headnote:

ESTOPPEL - PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL - EXTENSION OF JOINING TIME - SELECTION PROCESS - DE-SANCTIONING OF POSTS - LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION - APPOINTMENT ON THE POST OF L.D.C. - RAJASTHAN PANCHAYATI RAJ RULES, 1996 - RAJASTHAN RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATI RAJ (STATE AND SUBORDINATE) SERVICES RULES, 1998.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, contractual employees in the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MNREGS), applied for the post of L.D.C. under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. During the selection process, the State issued another advertisement for direct recruitment in subordinate services, including Accounts Assistants, which carried a higher pay scale. The petitioners applied for both posts. To avoid complications, the State issued a letter allowing L.D.C. selectees to apply for an extension of joining time till the issuance of appointment orders in the subordinate services recruitment process. The petitioners applied for an extension, but the State later proposed to abolish the remaining L.D.C. posts. The petitioners challenged this decision, arguing that the State was estopped from taking such action.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the State was estopped from de-sanctioning the remaining L.D.C. posts and that the petitioners were entitled to join their respective posts pursuant to their selection as L.D.Cs. The court found that the petitioners had a legitimate expectation that their extension of joining time would be granted and that they could join the post of L.D.C. if they were unsuccessful in the subordinate services selection process. This expectation was based on the State's own letter dated 28.6.2013, which directed the authorities concerned to grant an extension of joining time to L.D.C. selectees who applied for it.

Issues: 1. Whether the State was estopped from de-sanctioning the remaining L.D.C. posts after issuing a letter allowing L.D.C. selectees to apply for an extension of joining time? 2. Whether the petitioners had a legitimate expectation that their extension of joining time would be granted and that they could join the post of L.D.C. if they were unsuccessful in the subordinate services selection process?

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle of promissory estoppel to hold that the State was estopped from de-sanctioning the remaining L.D.C. posts. The court found that the petitioners had a legitimate expectation that their extension of joining time would be granted and that they could join the post of L.D.C. if they were unsuccessful in the subordinate services selection process. This expectation was based on the State's own letter dated 28.6.2013, which directed the authorities concerned to grant an extension of joining time to L.D.C. selectees who applied for it.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions and directed the respondents to allow the petitioners to join their respective posts pursuant to their selection as L.D.Cs. in the questioned direct recruitment process of the year 2013.

JUDGMENT

1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant bunch of writ petitions is preferred by the petitioners prosecuting a common cause of action and praying for an identical relief and are thus being decided together by this common order.

3. The petitioners herein were all engaged on contractual basis on various posts viz. Accounts Assistant etc. in Babu Lal Meena. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and other 17 connected writ petitions Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MNREGS) being run jointly by the Central Government and the State Government. The initial document which was executed for engaging the petitioners on contract basis was of one year duration where after, the contract period was extended from time to time. It is admitted case of the parties that the petitioners have been satisfactorily serving the respondents on contractual basis for last nearly 5 years. In order to provide an avenue of substantive employment to such contractual employees who were serving under NREGS and like schemes for a fairly long period, the State Government, through various Zila Parishads issued district wise advertisements dated 14.2.2013 under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short, 'the Rules of 1996') inviting applications from the aspirants for appointment on the post of L.D.C. The eligibility criterion for selection under the advertisement was as below:-

Senior Secondary from a recognised board or its equivalent examination,
Or

"O" or Higher Level Certificate Course conducted by DOEACC under control of the Department of Electronics, Government of India.
Or

Computer Operator & Programming Assistant (COPA)/ Data Preparation and Computer Software (DPCS) certificate Organised under National/State Council of Vocational Training Scheme.
Or

Diploma in Computer Science/Computer Applications from a University established by law in India or from an institution recognized.
Or

Diploma in Computer Science and Engineering from a Polytechnic Institute approved from State Government.
Or

Certified course in R.S.C.I.T. conducted by Vardhman Mahaveer Open University, Kota. In addition thereto, the bonus marks were provided for experience gained by the applicants during their contractual stints with the respective Zila Parishads in NREG Scheme or like schemes viz. Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan etc.

4. Being entitled and eligible for appointment, the petitioners herein applied against the advertised posts.

5. A proviso was inserted in Rule 273 of the Rules of 1996 providing that based on the length of service of more than one year as Junior Technical Assistant, Junior Engineer, Gram Rojgar Sahayak, Data Entry Operator, Computer Operator with Machine, Lekha Sahayak, Lower Division Clerk, Coordinator (IEC), Coordinator (Training), Coordinator Supervision or any other posts under any scheme of the department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, the candidate concerned shall be granted bonus marks as specified by the State Government. Under Rule 265 of the Rules of 1996, 95% of the vacancies of L.D.Cs. were to be filled by direct recruitment and 5% by way of promotion. The petitioners have asserted that by introducing this Proviso in Rule 273 for giving bonus marks to the persons already working on similar posts, the Government made known its intention to give weightage to the experienced hands while making recruitment under the Rules of 1996.

6. While the selection process for recruitment on the posts of L.D.Cs. was still continuing, the respondents issued another advertisement dated 25.3.2013 inviting applications from eligible candidates for filling up of various posts including Accounts Assistant on direct recruitment basis. It was clearly provided in the advertisement that the persons already working on the posts of Assistant Accountants (Lekha Sahayak)/ Accountants (Lekhakar)/Assistant Accounts Officer (Sahayak Lekha Adhikari) under the MGNREG Scheme or any other scheme run by the Panchayati Raj Department shall be giv


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top