HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10949/2017

1.

Rajendra Singh Rathore S/o Shri Bhanwar Singh, R/o

Choudhariyo Kee Dhani, Madawa, Tehsil Serwa Barmer.

2.

Nathu Ram Beda S/o Mangla Ram Beda, R/o Kamrudeep

Ki Dhani, District Barmer.

3.

Malu Ram Meena S/o Banna Ram, R/o Dediya Ka Bass,

P.s. Kuchaman City, District Nagaur.

4.

Rakesh Prasad S/o Shri Ram Swaroop Sharma, R/o

Sonardi Gram Panchayat Tarla, Tehsil Chotan District

Nagaur.

----Petitioners

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan Through The Principal Secretary, Rural

Development

And Panchayat

Raj

Department,

Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2.

Secretary Department Of Personnel, Government Of

Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3.

Secretary Department Of School Education, Government

Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

4.

Director, Elementary Education, Government Of

Rajasthan, Bikaner.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

through V.C.

:

Dr. Nupur Bhati

For Respondent(s)

through V.C.

:

Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

Order

31/01/2022

The petitioners have challenged the vires of Rule 286A of the

Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. The petitioners seek pay

parity with the Prabodhaks, in terms of the benefits granted to

(2 of 9)

[CW-10949/2017]

them under Rule 37A of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak

Service Rules, 2008.

Brief facts of the case are as under:-

The petitioners were working as ad-hoc teachers in the State

Government schools. They were carrying designations such as

‘Shiksha Karmi’, ‘Shiksha Sahyogi’ or ‘Para-teachers’ and were

engaged under various schemes of the State Government for

imparting education in the Government schools, particularly in

rural areas. They were paid fixed honorarium. All the petitioners

where eligible for appointment to the post of teacher grade-III.

They appeared in the examination conducted by the Rajasthan

Public Service Commission (‘RPSC’ for short) for selection and

appointment to the said post in the year 2007-2008. All the

petitioners were selected and appointed as teacher grade-III in

Government schools.

To deal with the issue of large number of ad-hoc teachers

working under different schemes of the State Government, the

State of Rajasthan in exercise of powers under Section 102 read

with Section 89 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, framed

the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008

(hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Rules of 2008’). The cadres

of Prabodhak and Senior Prabodhak were constituted under these

Rules. Detailed provisions were made for filing up of these posts.

Rule 37 of the Rules provides for pay during probation. As per this

Rule, a probationer trainee appointed in the service by direct

recruitment would be paid monthly fixed remuneration during the

period of probation at such rates as may be fixed by the

Government from time to time. Rule 37A was inserted on

08.09.2008. This Rule pertains to fixation of initial pay of

(3 of 9)

[CW-10949/2017]

Prabodhaks having experience beyond 5 years. It provides that a

Prabodhak appointed as a probationer trainee on successful

completion of period of probation shall be granted one increment

for every additional 3 years of continuous teaching experience

gained before his appointment beyond the required minimum 5

years of continuous teaching experience without break in any

recognized educational institution/educational project.

The grievance of the petitioners is that this benefit, which is

granted to the Prabodhaks, is not made available to them.

According to the petitioners, they also had similar experience as

para teachers and if the principle contained in Rule 37A of the

Rules of 2008 were to be applied to them, they would also get

additional increment in their pay scales. The petitioners conte