IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JODHPUR
SANDEEP MEHTA, SAMEER JAIN, JJ.
State of Rajasthan and Others – Appellants
Versus
Parasmal Mali S/o Shri Achla Ram – Respondent
D.B. Special Application Writ No. 252 of 2009
Decided On : 24-01-2022
Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 14, 21 and 39(a) - Panchayati Raj - Rule 259(7) - OCTROI duty was abolished - Dispensation of his engagement - Allegedly been given appointment as a Grem Sewak in similar circumstances - Representation so submitted by the respondent was dismissed by communication it was observed that Shri Parasmal was engaged by Gram Collector on daily wage - respondent's claim of parity with Balkishan Ojha was not tenable because neither respondent were appointed against any sanctioned post – Held, Legal proposition that no person can be appointed even on a temporary or ad hoc basis without inviting applications from all eligible candidates - If any appointment is made by merely inviting names from Employment Exchange or putting a note on Notice Board will not meet requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution. Such a course violates mandates of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as it deprives candidates who are eligible for post, from being considered - Person employed in violation of these provisions is not entitled to any relief including salary - For a valid and legal appointment mandatory compliance of the said Constitutional requirement is to be fulfilled – Appeal accepted.
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP MEHTA, J.
1. The instant intra-court appeal has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan for assailing the order dated 20.08.2008 passed by learned Single Bench of this Court whereby Writ Petition No. 4994/2005 preferred by the respondent Parasmal Mali S/o Shri Achla Ram was accepted and the appellants were directed to allow the respondent to join duty as Gram Sewak in pursuance of the order dated 31.03.2001 and to grant him all consequential benefits of seniority, fixation of pay etc. on notional basis without back wages.
2. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant appeal are noted herein-below:
3. In reply filed before the learned Single Bench, a specific assertion was made by the State that persons akin to Balkishan Ojha who had been absorbed, were as a matter of fact working on the post of Assistant Secretary and thus, Shri Parasmal who was engaged purely on daily wage basis as an Octroi Collector could not claim any parity and was not entitled to continue on the post which had since been abolished. The learned Single Bench was persuaded by the language of the communication (Annexure-10) wherein it was mentioned that Balkishan Ojha had not been appointed against any vacant post by an open invitation and thus, a review was being proposed in his matter as well. This Court observed that the Government had conceded that akin to Balkishan, one Champalal was also absorbed as a Gram Sewak. The Court held that once the welfare State had taken a decision to absorb those employees who were engaged in the collection of octroi, then all similar employees were required to be absorbed, considering them to be in service on the date of abolition of octroi. Pursuant to such discussion, the writ petition of the respondent was accepted.
4. Shri Karan Bishnoi, Associate to Shri Sunil Beniwal, AAG vehemently and fervently
Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.