Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 750
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR (1) S.B. Writ Misc Application No. 66/2020 Narendra Singh S/o Shri Asoo Singh Shekhawat, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of 402, Kailashpuri, Bikaner (Raj.)
----Petitioner Versus
1. Ajitabh Sharma, I.A.S., The Principal Secretary, Department Of Animal Husbandry Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Ramji Lal Meena, Dy. Secretary, Department Of Animal Husbandry, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Animal Husbandry Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents (2) S.B. Writ Misc Application No. 67/2020
1. Jitendra Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Ramniwas Sharma, Aged About 35 Years, Caste- Brahmin, Dhani Bhom Singh, Village- Bajrangpura, Tehsil- Viratnagar, District- Jaipur. (Hall Veterinary Officer, Deptt. Of Animal Husbandry, Rajasthan).
2. Pankaj Goswami S/o Shri Anna Lal Goswami, Aged About
30 Years, R/o Ward No. 18, Bus Stand Shaba, Nohar, District- Hanumangarh, Rajasthan. (Hall Veterinary Officer, Deptt. Of Animal Husbandry, Rajasthan).
----Petitioners Versus
1. Kunji Lal Meena, I.A.S. The Secretary, Department Of Animal Husbandry, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Ajay Kumar Gupta, R.a.s., The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
3. State Of Raj, Through Principal Sec. Dep. Animal Hus.
Jaipur ----Respondents (3) S.B. Writ Misc Application No. 68/2020 Bajrang Lal Sharma S/o Shri Gopal Lal Sharma, Aged About 30 Years, R/o 46 Triputi Nagar, Banar Road, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Department Of Animal Husbandry, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Ajitabh Sharma, Principal Secretary, Department Of Animal Husbandry, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Ajay Gupta, Director Of Department Of Animal Husbandry, Jaipur.
----Respondents (4) S.B. Writ Misc Application No. 69/2020
1. Dr. Mukesh Kumar Mali S/o Shri Bhagwan, Aged About 20 Years, Caste- Mali, R/o Mali Mohalla, Village- Hurda, District- Bhilwara, Rajasthan. (Hall Veterinary Officer, Govt. Veterinary Hospital-Kothiya, Bhilwara).
2. Dr. Pawan Kumar Mittal S/o Shri Mahesh Kumar, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Malarna Doongar, District- Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan. (Hall Veterinary Officer, Deptt. Of Animal Husbandry, Rajasthan).
3. Dr. Mahesh Nehra S/o Shri Sita Ram Kumawat, Aged About 30 Years, R/o 491, Rajni Vihar, Heerapur, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Hall Veterinary Officer, Deptt. Of Animal Husbandry, Rajasthan).
4. Dr. Lalit Kumar Gaur S/o Shri Shivlahri Gaur, Aged About
34 Years, R/o Vill. And Post-Garhi Himmat Singh, Tehsil- Mahwa, District- Dausa, Rajasthan. (Hall Veterinary Officer, Deptt. Of Animal Husbandry, Rajasthan).
5. Dr. Maninder Singh S/o Shri Laxman Prasad, Aged About
29 Years, R/o Village-Doonwas, Post-Karoda, Tehsil- Mundawar, District-Alwar, Rajasthan. (Hall Veterinary Officer, Govt. Veterinary Unit, Pachpahar, Jhalawar, Rajasthan).
6. Dr. Mohd. Abdul Khalik Khan S/o Abdul Rauf Khan, Aged About 29 Years, R/oc C-100 Waqf Nagar, Kota, Rajasthan. (Hall Veterinary Officer, Govt. Veterinary Hospital-Kothiya, Bhilwara).
7. Dr. Rajesh Kasera S/o Shri Balmukund Kasera, Aged About 30 Years, R/o E-4, Jawahar Nagar, Kokta, Rajasthan. (Hall Veterinary Officer, Govt. Mobile Veterinary Unit-Peepalda, Kota Rajasthan).
8. Dr. Suresh Chand Yadav S/o Shri Babu Lal Yadav, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Vill. And Post-Achrol, Tehsil-Amer, District-Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Hall Veterinary Officer, Govt.
Mobile Veterinary Hospital-Kotri, Bhilwara).
9. Dr. Kailash Chand Dagar S/o Shri Gopal Lal Jat, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village And Post-Chitwari Vial Morija, Tehsil-Chomu, District-Jaipur. (Hall Veterinary Officer, Deptt. Of Animal Husbandry, Rajasthan).
10. Dr. Arvind Singh S/o Shri Samandar Singh, Aged About
31 Years, R/o H.no. 31, Vidhe Kaur Colony, Killa Bharatpur. (Hall Veterinary Officer, Deptt. Of Animal Husbandry, Rajasthan).
11. Dr. Jyoti Prakash Sharma S/o Shri Rajendra Prasad Sharma, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Near Khadi Bhandar Sodiya Mohalla, Baswa, District-Dausa. (Hall Veterinary Officer, Govt. Veterinary Hospital, Lalsot, Dausa, Rajasthan).
12. Dr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Babu Lal Yadav, Aged About 31 Years, R/o C/o Rajeev Machine Store, Near Indira Circle Nagar, Bharatpur. (Hall Veterinary Officer, Deptt. Of Animal Husbandry, Rajasthan).
----Petitioners Versus
1. Shri Kunji Lal Meena, I.A.S., The Secretary, Department Of Animal Husbandry, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Shri Giriraj Singh Kushwaha, The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondents (5) S.B. Writ Misc Application No. 70/2020
1. Chandra Prakash Saini S/o Shri Matadin Saini, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village - Ganj, Tehsil Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
2. Mohit Gupta S/o Shri Nanak Chand Gupta, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Bas Kripalnagar, Tehsil - Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
3. Jitendra Yadav S/o Shri Ratan Lal Yadav, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Vill. Devri, Post Shekhupura, Tehsil Shikraj, District Dausa, Rajasthan.
4. Rakesh Kumar S/o Shri Mohar Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R./o Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners Versus
1. Kunji Lal Meena I.A.S., The Secretary, Department Of Animal Husbandry, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Ajay Kumar Gupta R.A.S., The Director Animal Husbandry Department Pashudhan Bhawan, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Dept. Of Animal Husbandry, Raj. Jaipur.
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.P. Sharma Mr. Manoj Bhandari Mr. Nitin Trivedi For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.K. Gaur, AAG with Mr. Salman Agha Mr. G.R. Punia, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Mahaveer Bhanwari JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
10/08/2021
1. Pursuant to order dated 21.01.2020, passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.495/2020: Kunji Lal Meena IAS & Anr. Vs. Dr. Mukesh Kumar Mali & Ors. these cases which were earlier registered as Contempt Petitions, have been converted to Civil Misc. Applications. The same are being decided conjointly as they emanate from common judgment and involve common facts.
2. The facts relevant for the present purposes are that various persons working on urgent temporary basis, appointed in terms of Rule 26 of the Rajasthan Animal Husbandry Service Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1963”), approached this Court with the grievance that in spite of the fact that after completion of the process of recruitment of Veterinary Officer 150 posts still remained unfilled, the respondents were going to dispense with their services.
3. Those writ petitions (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7694/2016 along with connected matters) filed by the petitioners came to be disposed of by this Court, vide order dated 19.01.2017 with the following observations:
"In view of the admitted facts and undisputed legal position, the present petitions are disposed of with the following directions:-
1) The remaining 150 posts of Veterinary Officer shall be filled from the remaining candidates of the said select/waiting list in accordance with merit. The needful shall be done within one month from receipt of the copy of this order, in case, no stay is operating in any other writ petitions with respect to the said selection list.
2) All other persons like the petitioners, who were working on contract basis and are still working on the said post shall be allowed to continue on the remaining posts beyond 525, if the posts are still lying vacant. They shall be allowed to continue till regularly selected candidates are made available.
3) The petitioners shall be paid the salary for the period for which it has been withheld.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners working on contractual basis should be given the same pay-scale as is being given to other similarly situated candidates working on the said post since 1998. However, no such prayer has been made in the present writ petitions. Accordingly, the petitioners are at liberty to seek the relief vide separate proceedings, if so advised, in accordance with law.
Disposed of in the above terms.”
4. Mr. S.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners invited Court’s attention towards the consent given by the State’s Counsel, duly recorded in the order dated 19.01.2017 and contended that the State is bound by the consent/assurance given by its counsel.
5. The relevant part recording State’s consent reads thus:
"It is agreed that about 150 posts are still lying vacant. Learned counsel for the respondents has very fairly stated that remaining posts will also be filled from the list of selected candidates/waiting list prepared, as the case may be, in pursuance to the result.”
6. As the State did not fill up those 150 posts, the petitioners herein preferred contempt petitions before this Court.
7. In S.B. Writ Contempt Petition No.804/2017 along with connected matters, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 29.01.2018, took a serious view of the matter and observed that the order dated 19.01.2017 was not complied with and the respondents have been trying to circumvent said order.
8. Feeling aggrieved with the order dated 29.01.2018, the State approached Hon’ble the Supreme Court by filing an SLP being SLP(C) No.5341/2018.
9. An argument was advanced before Hon’ble the Supreme Court that all these 150 posts, which were ordered to be filled in by the writ petitioners and others candidates, could not have been filled, as they belonged to SC/ST category candidates and were required to be carried forward as backlog of SC/ST (SC-68, ST-82)
candidates.
10. After hearing rival contentions, Hon’ble the Supreme Court ordered to convert these contempt petitions
