Order

18/02/2025

1. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for the State submits that the controversy involved in this petition has already been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kailash Chand Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8091/2019. Counsel submits that the instant petitions be disposed of in the light of the similar direction issued in the case of Kailash Chand Sharma (supra).

2. Considering the above factual aspect of the matter and looking to the fact that the respondents are agreeing that the issue involved in these petitions is covered by the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kailash Chand Sharma (supra), this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of both the instant writ petitions in the light of the similar directions as given by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kailash Chand Sharma (supra) which reads as under:-

"1. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred by the petitioner impugning the order dated 15.04.2019, passed by the Director, State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur, terminating service of petitioner as probationer from the post of Junior Lab Assistant, invoking Rule 23-A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short, “RSR”).

2. The contention of counsel for petitioner is that the appointment of petitioner was against the substantive post by way of regular appointment as per procedure of law and he was given appointment vide order dated 23.04.2018 (Annx.3), pursuant to the vacancies advertised on 22.09.2016. It has been contended that as per appointment order of petitioner dated 23.04.2018, he was appointed on probation for a period of two years pursuant to which he joined his services on 09.05.2018. Later on, before completion of his probation, petitioner has been informed vide letter dated 18.04.2019 that his services have been terminated vide order dated 15.04.2019 by the appointing authority, invoking the provision of Rule 23-A of RSR.

3. Counsel for petitioner contends that Rule 23-A of RSR deals with termination of service of a temporary employee and such rule does not apply on a regular appointee though on probation, therefore, the order impugned is ex-facie illegal as much as suffers from perversity and wrong exercise of powers by the appointing authorities. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed on the order dated 26.02.2018 passed by the Coordinate Bench in case of Dinesh Kumar Meena Vs. State ofRajasthan & Ors. reported in [2019 (2) RLW 1002 MANU/RH/0711/2018], which has been followed by the Coordinate Bench in another case of Mahesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9460/2024, whereby reinstatement was allowed vide order dated 29.07.2024.

4. Per contra, the Government counsel appearing on behalf of respondents-State authorities submits that the petitioner availed Extra Ordinary Leaves (EOLs) during his probation period from 02.04.2019 to 16.04.2019 and then from 22.04.2019 to 10.05.2019, which were not sanctioned and hence, on account of absenteeism of petitioner w.e.f. 02.04.2019 onwards, his services have been terminated vide order dated 15.04.2019. Counsel for respondent has supported the impugned order.

5. Heard counsel for both parties and perused the record including the impugned order and the relevant provision of Rule 23A of RSR. Rule 23A of RSR reads as under:-

“23A. Notice for termination of service of a temporary employee:-

@1 (a) Except as otherwise provided in sub- rule (2), the service of a temporary Government Servant shall be liable to termination at any time by notice in writing given either by the Government servant to the appointing authority or by the appointing authority to the government servant.

(b) The period of such notice shall be one month; Provided that the services of any such Government servant may be terminated