Hon'ble ASOPA, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the order dated 19.12.2007 (Annex.6) with the direction to the respondents to consider his case for regularization on the post of Ward Boy/Class IV in regular pay scale as per the judgment of the Division Bench dated 21.3.2006 in State of Rajasthan and Others vs. Smt. Naurati Devi and Others D.B. S.A.W. No. 243/1997.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner, who was a member of Schedule Tribes, was initially appointed as Class-IV servant on daily wages from 21.2.1987 and since then he is working. The petitioner requested for regularisation of his services and when no action was taken by the Department, the petitioner and other similarly situated persons preferred DB CWP No. 4063/1988 which was allowed vide judgment dated 10.4.1989 and it was directed that the petitioners in that writ petition will get the regular pay in the pay scale of Class IV servant from October, 1988 i.e. the month during which the said writ petition had been filed and they will continue to get the regular salary so long as they are in employment. The State Government did not challenge the aforesaid judgment dated 10.4.1989 and the same attained finality. It is further stated in the writ petition that the State Government passed an order dated 4.12.1989 allowing minimum pay and dearness allowance of regular pay scale of Ward boy to the petitioner and his name existed at Sl.No.6 in the said order and since then, the petitioner is getting minimum pay scale plus dearness allowance. However, the respondents have not regularised his services. Ultimately, the petitioner preferred SBCWP No. 2881/2002 for regularization of his services, which was decided on 7.11.2006 with a direction to file representation before the respondents. After filing representation, the respondents have passed order dated 19.12.2007 (Annex.6) whereby case of the petitioner for regularisation has been rejected on the ground that the requisite educational qualification for the post of Class-IV / Ward Boy is Vth Class pass and the State Government has also not granted relaxation. Since the petitioner has not passed Vth Class, his services cannot be regularised.

Thus, the dispute between the parties is of qualification of Vth Class and weightage to be given to experience while considering the case for regularisation.

4. Counsel further submits that the aforesaid issue of qualification and experience has been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan and Others vs. Smt. Naurati Devi and Others (DB SAW No. 243/1997) decided on 21.3.2006 wherein it has been held that "In case the respondents were not discharging their duties efficiently, their services would have been terminated long back. It seems to us that their qualifications have not come in the way of discharge of their duties. The learned Single Judge in the circumstances of the case, was entirely right in directing the appellants to regularise the services of the respondents."

5. Counsel for the respondents does not dispute the aforesaid Division Bench judgment. However, he insists that even for regularisation, the educational qualification of Vth Class is to be considered.

6. The Division Bench in the aforesaid case has given weightage to the judgment of the learned Single Judge, for regualrisation.

7. The educational qualification of the candidate is to be seen at the time of appointment and not at the time of regularisation after completion of 23 yers of service. In the instant case, when the petitioner was appointed on 21.2.1987, the Rajasthan Class IV Services (Recruitment and Other Service Conditions) Rules, 1963 (in short 'the Rules of 1963') were in force and according to Rule 10, read with Schedule-I, Entry No. 4 thereof, there is provision for relaxation of the academic qualification prescribed in column 4 for SC and ST candidates i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document