HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.
Nisha Saxena – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Commissioner, College Education Government Rajasthan, Shiksha Sankul, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18382 of 2011
Decided On : 08-04-2022
APPOINTMENT - Lecturer (Psychology) - Rajasthan Voluntarily Rural Education Service Rules, 2010 - Rule 4, Rule 5 - The court discussed the applicability of Rule 4 and Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Voluntarily Rural Education Service Rules, 2010, which deal with the procedure and terms and conditions for appointment in government service. The court highlighted the key provisions of the rules and their implications on the petitioner's claim for appointment on the post of Senior Lecturer (Psychology) in Government service under the Rules of 2010.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was appointed as a College Lecturer in Psychology, and her services were terminated. The petitioner sought appointment on the post of Senior Lecturer (Psychology) under the Rajasthan Voluntarily Rural Education Service Rules, 2010.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not working on the sanctioned, approved, and aided post of Lecturer (Psychology) and therefore, was not entitled to appointment in government service under Rule 4 of the Rules of 2010.
Issues: The key issue was whether the petitioner was working on the sanctioned, approved, and aided post of Senior Lecturer (Psychology) and entitled to appointment under the Rules of 2010.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of the Rules of 2010 and the precedents to determine that the petitioner was not eligible for appointment in government service under the Rules of 2010.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court held that the petitioner was not entitled to appointment in government service under Rule 4 of the Rules of 2010.
ORDER
1. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-
'It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that:-
1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record of the case and after examining the same be pleased to quash and set aside the action of the respondents and the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner to be appointed on aided post w.e.f. 01.04.1994 with all consequential benefits and respondent No.2 may directed to send the service record of the petitioner to the respondent No.1 and respondent No.1 may directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Senior Lecturer (Psychology) under the Rajasthan Voluntarily Rural Education Service Rules, 2010 w.e.f. 29.07.2011, with all consequential benefits.
2. Any prejudicial order to the interest of the petitioner, if passed during the pendency of the writ petition, the same may kindly be taken on record and be pleased to quash and set aside.
3. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may consider just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.
4. Cost of the writ petition may be quantified in favour of the petitioner.'
2. Brief facts of the case are that vide order dated 17.07.1986 the petitioner was appointed on the post of College Lecturer in Psychology in J.B. Shah Girls P.G. College, Jhunjhunu i.e. respondent No.2 initially for a period of one year on probation basis. Subsequently, her services were confirmed on the said post on 15.12.1987 and thereafter the University of Rajasthan granted approval on the appointment of the petitioner vide order dated 13.03.1992. Thereafter the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 20.02.1993. Against which she submitted an appeal before the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (for short 'RNGEI Tribunal') and the same was allowed vide judgment dated 02.05.2001 and her order of termination dated 20.02.1993 was quashed and set aside and she was directed to be reinstated with continuity in service along with back wages and consequential benefits.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the judgment passed by the RNGEI Tribunal was challenged by the respondent No.2-College before this Court by way of filing SB CWP No. 2809/2001 and the same was decided on 12.09.2001. The said order was challenged by the respondent No.2 before the Division Bench by way of filing DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 896/2001 and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 15.10.2001 against which Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 4337/2002 was submitted by the respondent No.2 and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 04.03.2002.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that the Government of Rajasthan granted financial aid to the respondent No.2- College for four sanctioned posts of Lecturer in Psychology subject and at the relevant time when the aid was granted by the Government to the respondent No.2- College, the petitioner alone was the confirmed Lecturer in Psychology subject and the other three Lecturers in Psychology subject namely; Mrs. Reena Shaktawat, Ms. Neelam Krishnia and Ms. Priti Singh were temporary and respondent No.3- Dr. Manorama Tyagi was not in service. Thereafter, the Director of College Education gave approval to the appointment of the petitioner vide order dated 17.04.1995. Thereafter, the Screening Committee regularized the services of three temporary Lecturers i.e. Mrs. Reena Shaktawat, Mrs. Reena Shaktawat, Ms. Neelam Krishnia and Ms. Priti Singh vide order dated 04.12.1995 but the name of the respondent No.3 Dr. Manorama Tyagi was not considered for her regularization on the post of Lecturer in Psychology.
5. It was also pleaded in the writ petition that the Rajasthan Voluntary Rural Education Service Ru
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the Rajasthan Voluntarily Rural Education Service Rules, 2010, specifically Rule 4 and Rule 5, in determining....
Absorption into aided posts requires adherence to established rules and qualifications; long service alone cannot justify irregular appointments.
Rule 33 of Pension Rules states as pension on absorption in or under a corporation, company or body.
The Court upheld the right of the petitioner to claim benefits under the 2014 Placement Rules based on the Grant-in-Aid status, despite opposition arguments about common cadre membership.
Point of law; It is clearly clarified in this judgment also in line with the earlier judgments also that unless and until the original appointment is a “regular recruitment” in accordance with “the r....
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.