1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL WRIT No. 4345 of 2004 RAJESH VYAS & ORS V/S STATE & ORS Mr. ANAND PUROHIT, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. NM LODHA,AAG, Mr.MS SINGHVI, Mr.NR CHOUDHARY, for the respondent Date of Order : 2.5.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI,J. ORDER ----- Heard learned counsel for the parties. This public interest petition has been filed seeking quashing of the advertisement issued on 28.7.2004 and 25.9.2004, and seeking to restrain the respondents from proceeding with the selection process, and also a direction is sought to appoint the Junior Engineers in DPEP/Sarva Shiksha while providing opportunity of being considered to the petitioners, and if they are found suitable, they be given appointment pursuant to the advertisements. It would suffice to say that the reliefs claimed are self-contradictory, inasmuch as, on the one hand, petitioners pray for setting aside the advertisement, and quashing them, and on the other hand, they had prayed that 2 the respondents be directed to appoint Junior Engineers in DPEP/Sarva Shiksha while providing opportunity of being considered to the petitioners, and if they are found suitable, they be given appointment pursuant to the advertisements. Thus, it clearly shows that the relief claimed is personal relief, and there is nothing like PIL. Secondly, the petitioners have alleged to be filing writ petition in representing capacity, and claiming to be unemployed youth, while the respondents in their reply at page 6 in sub-para 2, have clearly raised an objection, to the effect, that out of the three, two petitioners being No.2 and 3, Kana Ram and Pradeep Chhangani are already working as consultant for civil work in Rajasthan Council of Primary Education at Shergarh and Bap Blocks of Jodhpur District. Thus, the writ suffers from vice of mis-statement of fact. A rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the petitioners, wherein these two persons being employed is not disputed, and all that has been alleged is that in this way, if they are doing something for earning bread and butter, the objection cannot be raised. In our view, all said and done, the fact remains that it is a mis-statement of fact. Thirdly, vide order-sheet dated 2.8.2006, this 3 Court noticed that State Government has established Lok Jumbish on the basis of finance made available by the International Agencies for upliftment of education system in the village areas, which had been discontinued, and now a new project has been formulated in the name of DPEP/Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, for which a Council has been established, known as Rajasthan Elementary Education Council, and that there are large number of posts, which are to be filled in by way of appointment on deputation by the said Council, for which advertisement has been issued, and that this has been done to deprive the unemployed youth of employment, which is also to have an adverse affect, and that when the persons are sent from the parent department to such bodies, the working of such parent department is suffering, and therefore, the State Government was directed to consider the larger impact on sending the persons on deputation on account of which the parent department suffers. It was further directed that the issue is required to be considered by the State Government at the highest level, and the decision taken in that regard was directed to be placed before this Court. Accordingly, the learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record the minutes of the Committee meeting, wherein this matter was considered. This has been produced way-back on 12.4.2007 after giving copy to the learned counsel for the petitioner, and from perusal of the minutes, we find that the Committee comprised of 8 officers under the 4 Chairmanship of the Principal Secretary, School & Sanskrit Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, and the other 7 members, being Secretary, School & Sanskrit Education, Nominee of the Finance Department, Nominee of the Law Department, Nominee of the Department of Personnel, Commissioner, Secondary Education Department, Rajasthan, Bikaner, Commissioner, Elementary Education Department Rajasthan, Bikaner, and Director, Rajasthan Council of Elementary Education. The Committee deliberated the matter over the merits and demerits of having project staff on deputation from other departments as well as on contract, and the various points, which came up for discussion, have been enumerated in 11 paragraphs, and after considering all this, the Committee finally arrived at a conclusion that SSA/DPEP are supportive programmes for elementary education, and eventually get merged in form of routine functioning of the department. It imperatively needs experienced persons of the Education Department itself for pedagogical initiatives. For other technical and managerial posts also, the preference should be given to take people from the state government's engineering, accounts, and general administrative departments on deputation. On sufficient people not being available from within government set up, only people on contract should be taken. In our view, the 11 points considered are the most relevant aspects, which were required to be considered, and have rightly been considered. It is also significant to note 5 that after this report, no pleadings have been taken on the side of the petitioners to controvert, or challenge the decision taken in the said Committee meeting. Thus, for all the above reasons, we do not find any ground to entertain this PIL Writ. The same is, therefore, dismissed. ( KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /tarun/