Whether approved for reporting?

1^{Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?}

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge

(Oral)

CMP-T No.1033 of 2023 in CWPOA No.33 of 2019

By way of present application, the applicant Vinod Kumar has prayed for impleading him as petitioner No.43 in the present petition, on the ground that he has acquired degree of Bachelor of Physical Education in the yeahr 2002, from Amravati University Maharashtra and, thereafter got his name enrolled with the employment exchange.

Since, the applicant is similarly situate as that of other petitioners, the application is allowed and he is ordered to be impleaded as petitioner No.43 in the writ petition. Application accordingly stands disposed of.

CWPOA No.33 of 2019 a/w

CWP Nos.7140 of 2021, 1569 of 2023 and

2803 of 2023

All these petition(s) have been filed with the identical prayers, one set of such prayers in CWPOA No.33 of 2019 is reproduced hereunder:-

“(i) That writ of mandamus may kHindly be issued, directing the respondent department to fill up 80 posts of DPEs in Education Department by way of direct recruitment (the backlog of DPEs from 25% quota), since from 1997 till date, these posts were not filled up as per othe Recruitment & Promotion Rules, whereas the Education Department has filled up 70% p ost of DPEs by way of promotion as per the Recrutitment & Promotion Rules.

(1-a) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to give appointment to the petitioners from the due date by way of direct orecruitment against the posts of DPEs by taking their names from Employment Exchanges, with all consequential benefits, as the same and similar appointments have been given by this mode to 152 junior persons like Sumesh Kumar Dogra and Umesh Kumar, since the petitioners senior, but deprived from such appointments.

(ii) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents department to appoint the petitioners as DPEs on contract basis as per batch-wise seniority by relaxing the Recruitment & Promotion Rules in the same manner as has been relaxed by the Education Department in case of DPEs appointed on PTA basis without holding any commission and now they are being treated at par with the contractual appointees or in alternative, all the irregular appointments of DPEs in the Education Department may kindly be quashed and set aside.”

Learned counsel for the petitioners have not pressed the prayers made vide Serial No. (i) and (ii) and thus, this Court is considering only the prayer No. (1-a).

The precise grouse of the petitioners as prayed in the writ petitions and also highlighted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is that though tHhe petitioners were eligible for the post of Diploma Holder in Physical Education (DPEs) as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules (for short R&P Rules), however, the respondents without taking the recourset as per the R&P Rules had filled up the said posts through the Employment Exchanges. As per information received by the petitioners under RTI, there were about 237 posts of DPEs lying vacant and the respondents had appointed the persons, who were juniors to the hpetitioners against the posts of DPEs from the year 2000 onwards. It has been averred that the petitioners had acquired their diplomas from the year 2000 to 2008 and 2013 and the respondents-Department had filled up 328 posts of DPEs as per PTA policy, 2006. No direct recruitment has been made from the year 1997 and hence the appointment of 328 candidates made, is contrary to the R&P Rules. The petitioners have not been given chance for appointment by way of direct recruitment against these posts. It has further been averred in the amended writ petition that since the respondents have offered the appointment by relaxing the R&P Rules to the PTA appointees to treat them as contractual appointees as DPEs, the same treatment be given to them.

The respondents filed reply to the petition and averr