1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ::: JUDGMENT 1 SBCWP NO.11841/2009 RADHESHYAM JANGID Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 2 SBCWP NO.39/2010 KUIYA RAM & ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 3 SBCWP NO.75/2010 SATYA PRAKASH BALAI & ORS Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 4 SBCWP NO.87/2010 DILEEP KUMAR & ORS Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 5 SBCWP NO.435/2010 MUKESH KUMAR & ORS Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 6 SBCWP NO.436/2010 PRASHANT Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 7 SBCWP NO.650/2010 SMT. NAINA DEVI ACHARYA Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 8 SBCWP NO.1560/2010 VIRENDRA SINGH & ORS Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 9 SBCWP NO.2772/2010 BHIKA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 10 SBCWP NO.2769/2010 MAHIPAL SINGH CHARAN Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 11 SBCWP NO.2770/2010 MUKESH SINGH SOLANKI Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 12 SBCWP NO.3030/2010 SOHAN LAL & ORS Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 13 SBCWP NO.3035/2010 SMT. ANNAPURNA TIWARI Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 14 SBCWP NO.3121/2010 DEEPAK KUMAR & ORS Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 15 SBCWP NO.3238/2010 MONA RATHORE & ORS Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 16 SBCWP NO.3280/2010 SMT. SUMAN & ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 17 SBCWP NO.3340/2010 NAND KISHORE PAREEK & ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 18 SBCWP NO.3479/2010 VIDYA SURAGI Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 19 SBCWP NO.3514/2010 RAM SWAROOP & ANR Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 20 SBCWP NO.3537/2010 RAMCHANDRA & ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 21 SBCWP NO.3556/2010 PRAMILA PALIWAL & ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS 22 SBCWP NO.3714/2010 SHALINI SHUKLA & ANR Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS Date of order : 16.4.2010 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. S/Sh. BN kalla, Bharat Devasi, MK Dudy, Hanuman Singh Choudhary, AR Godara, Awar Dan Charan, VR Choudhary, Sandeep Saruparia, GR Bhari, Shanker Lal Sukhwal, Pushspendra Singh, Subhash Kachhawaha and HR Chawla, for the petitioner(s). Mr. RL Jangid, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Rajesh Bhati, Asstt to AAG. for the respondent State. <><><> 2 The learned counsel for the parties submit that part of Condition No.4 has been stayed by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court Bench, Jaipur, however, that will not affect the fate of these writ petitions and both the counsel submit that similar directions, subject to the effect of the interim order as passed by the Division Bench of the Jaipur Bench of the High Court, may be passed in these matters also. In view of the above reasons, all these writ petitions are disposed of in the light of the directions issued in the S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 2579/09 Devendra Kumar & ors. v. State and connected matters decided vide judgment dated 15.5.2009 and in the light of the decision given in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4652/09 and connected matters decided on 8.5.2009 with further clarification that the petitioners may satisfy the competent authority, who may be District Education Officer or the Block Elementary Education Officer about the genuineness of the documents as well as continuity of their working in the year 2008- 2009. The directions given in the above writ petitions are incorporated in these writ petitions which are as under:- 3 I. During continuation of the work, as detailed out hereinabove, the invocation of the last extension is arbitrary and illegal; and the consequential automatic termination orders of the petitioners are set aside. II. The RPSC/DPC selected candidates/employees are still not available and next academic sessions is about to start; even urgent temporary appointments under Rule 28 of the Rules of 1971 are not possible due to short span of one month and a half left to start with the process of admission and academic session, therefore, as per the aims and objects of the Scheme, respondents are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for continuation in service till regularly selected candidates from RPSC/persons selected and recommended by the DPC for promotion are made available in the light of the above observations; III. Even in case of appropriate order of continuation in service till regularly selected candidates from RPSC/DPC selected persons are available, the petitioners are not entitled for wages of the vacations, in other words, when the schools are closed. IV. In case the regularly selected candidates from RPSC/persons selected and recommended by the DPC for promotion are made available, then the respondents can terminate services of the petitioners after preparation of the seniority list on the State level as per their date of appointment and merit assigned to them, by following the principle of 'last come first go' to the extent of availability of the selected candidates and while doing so, the respondents will keep the interest of the present students and prospective students in view.” It is further made clear that the portion which has been stayed by the Division Bench of this Court shall remain stayed in the light of the order of the Division Bench and that is about the preparation of the seniority list at State 4 level . The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners are also directed to submit the court fee of Rs.25/- for each of the petitioners in case it is a joint writ petition and certified copy of this order may be issued to the petitioners only subject to payment of this Court fee. [PRAKASH TATIA], J. mlt/cpgoyal/s phophaliya 5 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO._______/ Date of order : 16.4.2010 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. S/Sh. BN kalla, Bharat Devasi, MK Dudy, Hanuman Singh Choudhary, AR Godara, Awar Dan Charan, VR Choudhary, Sandeep Saruparia, GR Bhari, Shanker Lal Sukhwal, Pushspendra Singh, Subhash Kachhawaha and HR Chawla, for the petitioner(s). Mr. RL Jangid, Addl. Advocate General with Mr.Rajesh Bhati , Asstt to AAG, for the respondent State. <><><> This writ petition is disposed of. [see separate judgment in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11841/2009- Radheshyam Jangid v. State of Raj. & ors.] decided today itself. By order Court master.