Back
2024 Supreme(Raj) 985
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI, J.
Chandra Prakash Assudani, S/o. Shri Nanak Ram and Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner and Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7810 Of 2020
Decided On : 24-09-2024
For the Petitioners: Mr. Kailash Choudhary
For the Respondents: Mr. Digvijay Sodha for Mr. Kamlesh Sharma, AGC.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that fixed remuneration for probationers is unconstitutional, and all eligible candidates must receive equal treatment regarding pay and benefits.
Headnote:
Employment - Teacher Recruitment - Rajasthan Service Rules - Sections 8, 24 - The court interpreted the provisions of the Rajasthan Service Rules regarding probation and remuneration, emphasizing the need for equal treatment of candidates and the unconstitutionality of fixed remuneration practices during probation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash orders regarding salary and probation treatment following recruitment as Teacher Grade-III, claiming entitlement to full salary and benefits based on previous court judgments.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were entitled to notional benefits, including pay fixation and seniority, from the date when similarly situated candidates received such benefits, despite not having rendered actual services during probation.
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to full salary and benefits during probation and if the fixed remuneration practice is unconstitutional.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that all eligible candidates must be treated equally, and the practice of fixed remuneration during probation was unconstitutional, thus allowing for notional benefits.
Result: The court directed the respondents to grant notional benefits to the petitioners without recovery of any payments made.
ORDER :
(Farjand Ali, J.) :
1. The petitioner has claimed for the following relief:-
“(a) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, impugned orders dated 17.08.2020, 18.08.2020 and 20.08.2020 (Annexure 4) may kindly be declared illegal and be qaushed and set aside and further, the respondents be directed not be effort recovery from the petitioner and the respondents be further directed to treat the period of probation of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.010.2008.
(b) By an appropriate writ, order or directions, the respondents be directed to grant full salary to the petitioner during the period of probation in light of the judgment in the case of Gopal Kumawat and revise the pay accordingly.
(c) By an appropriate writ, order or directions, the respondents be directed to give arrears of salary with interest @ 18% per annnum from the date the same became due till the date of payment.”
2. The present dispute arises out of the recruitment process initiated by the Panchayat Raj Department in the year 2012-2013 for the post of Teacher Grade-III. The petitioners being eligible, participated in the selection process in question and were consequentially given appointments. Counsel for the petitioners has shown the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Dal Chand Jat Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.: SB Civil Writ Petition No. 19924/2017 delivered on 13.11.2017, in which the judgment of Hemlata Shrimali & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3247/2015) has been followed. Learned counsel has next taken this Court to the judgment of Hemlata Shrimali (supra) passed by this Court in decided on 01.04.2015 and operative portion of the said order reads as follows:
"10. The learned counsels for the petitioners have not disputed the above stated facts mentioned in the reply filed by the respondents. They have also not disputed that as per the decision of the Division Bench which is under challenge before the Supreme Court, the petitioners are not eligible to be considered for the posts of Teacher Gr.III (Level I and Il), they having possessed less than 60% marks in RTET. In the opinion of the Court, the respondents therefore were justified in issuing the press notes calling only those candidates who had secured 60% or more marks in RTET, for verification of the documents.
11. It is pertinent to note that the respondents have prepared the merit lists in question for the appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.III(Level I and II) for various subjects, subject to the final outcome of the SLP, which is pending before the Apex Court, and accordingly have also reserved the posts for the candidates falling in above stated category 'Y' and 'Z', at the relevant place in the merit list, securing their rights, if the decision of the Apex Court ultimately is found to be beneficial to them.
12. In view of the above, it is directed that the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed further with the selection and appointment of those meritorious candidates, who have secured 60% or more marks in RTET, which appointments will be subject to the final outcome of the decision of the Apex Court in SLP No.23178-23182/2013. It is clarified that if the candidates belonging to the 'Y' and 'Z' categories stated hereinabove are found eligible as per the decision of the Apex Court in SLP referred above, they shall be given notional benefits including the benefit of seniority, but not the monetary benefits.
13. With the above stated directions, all the petitions stand disposed of. By this order, the stay applications and other pending application, if any also stand disposed of. A copy of this order be placed in each connected files."
3. Counsel for the petitioners has also drawn attention of this Court to the order passed by this Court in the case of Leela Ram Parmar and Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors., decided on 24.05.2017, the relevant part of which reads thus:
"Undeniably, the petitioners have already been accorded appointment. However, State-re
