1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B.  CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7511/2014

Munni Devi Gour vs. State & Ors.

DATE OF ORDER 

:

:

4^th September, 2014

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

*******

None present for the petitioner

##

Defect is overruled.

Grievance   of   the   petitioner   is   that   despite

petitioner's   working   on   the   post   of   Shiksha

Karmi/Para   Teacher/Shiksha   Sahayogi   in   different

government schools since long with the respondents,

they have not been regularised on the said post.

It is contended that petitioners are working for

last   more   than   14   years   continuously   without

intervention of order of any Court or Tribunal. 

It   is   contended   that   In   compliance   of   a

judgment   of   Supreme   Court   in  Secretary   State   of

Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1, the State

Government has, by notification dated 27.02.2009,

promulgated   'the   Rajasthan   Class‐IV   Service

(Recruitment   and   other   Service   Conditions)

(Amendment) Rules, 2009', to consider cases of all

such employees who have been working on the post of

Class‐IV and have completed ten years of service on

10.04.2006,  without intervention  of  any court  or

tribunal and continuously working as such on the

2

date   of   commencement   of   these   Rules   i.e.

27.02.2009, so as to regularize them in service. It

is contended that till date no final view has been

taken by the respondents to regularize his service.

The Supreme Court in para 53 of the judgment in

Secretary State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi  held as

under: 

“53.   One   aspect   needs   to   be   clarified.

There   may   be   cases   where   irregular

appointments (not illegal appointments) as

explained in S.V. Narayanappa – (1967) 1

SCR 128, R.N. Nanjundappa ‐ (1972) 1 SCC

409,   and   B.N.   Nagarajan   –   (1979)   4   SCC

507,   and   referred   to   in   paragraph   15

above, of duly qualified persons in duly

sanctioned   vacant   posts   might   have   been

made and the employees have continued to

work for ten years or more but without the

intervention   of   orders   of   courts   or   of

tribunals. The question of regularization

of the services of such employees may have

to be considered on merits in the light of

the   principles   settled   by   this   Court   in

the   cases   above   referred   to   and   in   the

light of this judgment. In that context,

the Union of India, the State Governments

and   their   instrumentalities   should   take

steps to regularize as a one time measure,

the   services   of   such   irregularly

appointed, who have worked for ten years

or more in duly sanctioned posts but not

under   cover   of   orders   of   courts   or   of

tribunals and should further ensure that

regular   recruitments   are   undertaken   to

fill   those   vacant   sanctioned   posts   that

require to be filled up, in cases where

temporary   employees   or   daily   wagers   are

being   now   employed.   The   process   must   be

set in motion within six months from this

date. We also clarify that regularization,

if   any   already   made,   but   not   subjudice,

need   not   be   reopened   based   on   this

judgment, but there should be no further

3

by‐passing

 

of

 

the

 

constitutional

requirement   and   regularizing   or   making

permanent, those not duly appointed as per

the constitutional scheme.”  

It is contended that in the case of similarly

situated   persons   i.e.   S.B.   Civil   Writ   Petition

No.6261/2014,   Shamsher   Khan   &   Ors.   vs.   State   &

Ors.,   decided   on   29.5.2014,   this   Court   set   the

petitioners at liberty to approach the respondents

by   way   of   filing   representation,   which   shall   be

considered   by   them   in   the   light   of   aforesaid

judgement of Uma Devi, supra.

     For   the   grievance   like   the   present   one,

instead of directly entertaining the writ petition,

petitioner   is   set   at   liberty   to   approach   the

respondents,