[2026:RJ-JD:560]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4218/2002 Ram Sukh Vyas, aged 49 years Son of Shri Kishan Lal Vyas Resident of Kikani Vyason ka Chowk, Bikaner (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through Education Secretary, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Rajasthan, Bikner

3. Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Rajasthan, Bikaner.

4. District Education officer, Secondary Education, Govt.of Rajasthan, Bikaner.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bheemkant Vyas with Mr. Saurabh Kant Vyas Ms. Sonia Jha For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.K. Mehta, Dy.G.C. with Mr. Bhupesh Charan HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

07/01/2026

1. The matter has been listed in the category of “Oldest Matters for Hearing”.

2. The present writ petition has been filed with the prayer for quashing of order dated 07.08.2002 (Annexure-5) whereby the representation as filed by the petitioner for grant of the selection grade on completion of ten years of service stood rejected.

3. The facts as averred in the present petition are that the petitioner was appointed in the month of April 1985 and completed ten years of service on 03.04.1995. At that point of time, he was not granted the benefit of first selection grade and hence, he moved a representation for the said purpose.

4. Subsequently, the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 12.08.1998 (Annexure-1) for the reason of he having remained behind the bars for a period of more than 48 hours. A writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2778/1998) against the order of suspension was filed by the petitioner which came to be allowed vide order dated 20.10.2000 whereby order of suspension dated

12.08.1998 stood quashed.

5. It is relevant to note at this stage that even prior to the passing of order dated 20.10.2000, the petitioner was reinstated vide order dated 06.07.1999 with immediate effect. However, the said reinstatement was made subject to the decision in the disciplinary proceedings. When, despite the petitioner having been reinstated, he was not granted the benefit of selection grade, he again preferred a writ petition which stood disposed of vide order dated 07.08.2002 (Annexure-5) whereby he was directed to file a representation and the same was directed to be decided within a stipulated period.

6. It is the rejection of the said representation vide the order impugned which is under challenge in the present petition. The representation has been rejected on the count that the benefit of selection grade is payable only if the services of an employee are found to be regular and satisfactory. So far as the petitioner is concerned, a criminal case was registered against him and even disciplinary proceedings had been undertaken against him and hence, his services could not be termed to be satisfactory.

7. After hearing the counsels and perusing the record, this Court is of the clear opinion that the reason assigned for rejecting the representation of the petitioner is totally erroneous.

8. It is evident on record that the petitioner was arrested in the year 1998 and was put under suspension in the said year only. Meaning thereby, till the completion of first ten years of his service, there was nothing against the petitioner which could be termed to be ‘unsatisfactory services’.

9. It is not disputed that the ACRs of the petitioner were satisfactory during the said tenure. It is admitted on record that till 03.04.1995 i.e. ten years from his appointment, the petitioner had no adverse entry in his service record. On what basis the services of the petitioner for the period of ten years were termed to be unsatisfactory, is incomprehensible. Further, it is relevant to note that even the charge-sheet was served on him in the year

2009.

10. This Court is of the clear opinion that as the benefit of first selection grade was to be awarded on completion of ten years of service, the petitioner was definitely entitled