CW 4276/08 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4276/08 Anil Kumar Kothari Versus State & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 05/05/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. D.S. Poonia, for petitioner *** Instant petition has been filed by petitioner with the grievance that while working on contractual basis as a Teacher, his services have been dispensed with without due process of law. Petitioner who claims himself to be eligible for the post of Senior Teacher which is included in the schedule appended to Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 and according to the Scheme post is to be filled by direct recruitment and promotion and so far as direct recruitment quota is concerned, post is filled by open selection as per procedure provided under Chapter IV of Rules, 1971. The State Government issued a circular Ann.1 dated 3rd September, 2007 and introduced a Scheme called Students Friendly Scheme, where it was observed that since post of Lecturer & Senior Teacher since lying vacant and for good reasons, the same could not be filled, thus, as an interim measure the same be filled under the scheme on contractual basis on a CW 4276/08 [2] consolidated sum of Rs.4,000/- & Rs.3,000/- respectively. It was also mentioned that such appointments made shall be allowed to continue till regular selections or 29th February, 2008 whichever is earlier. Petitioner being eligible for the post of Senior Teacher filled his contract in terms of circular and was appointed on 21st September, 2007 and allowed to continue as per contract entered upto 29th February, 2008 which is evident from Ann.2. It appears that the State Government later on relaxed the period vide circular dt.31st January, 2008 Ann.3 to allow such persons who were appointed under the said Scheme i.e. Students Friendly Scheme upto March/April, 2008, as the case may be. It is not disputed by the counsel that petitioner was allowed to continue under the Scheme upto April, 2008. Grievance of petitioner is that since regular selections have not so far been made, as such, the very action of the respondents in dispensing with his services, is arbitrary and also in violation of principles of natural justice. Post of Senior Teacher on which petitioner was appointed is included in the schedule appended to Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 and the post if could not be CW 4276/08 [3] filled by regular selections, can be filled by urgent temporary appointment under Rule 28 of the Rules, 1971. In the instant case, the procedure provided under the Rules, 1971 even with regard to urgent temporary appointment as provided therein has not been followed by the department so far as scheme introduced vide order Ann.1 dated 3rd September, 2007 is concerned it was a pure contractual appointment on the consolidated sum amongst those who are eligible to hold the post in question under the Students Friendly Scheme and it has been specifically mentioned that such contractual appointments shall be allowed to continue till regular selection or upto 29th February, 2008 whichever is earlier but later on extended by the respondents upto March/April, 2008 as is evident from Ann.3 dated 31st January, 2008, the petitioner has been allowed to continue upto the contractual period as such no right has been conferred in favour of petitioner to allow till regular selections are made. Since his contractual appointment was in terms of Scheme introduced by the respondents, which was not in consonance with the Scheme of Rules, 1971, thus, cannot be allowed to continue thereafter. CW 4276/08 [4] As regards submission made by counsel for the petitioner that regular selections have not been made, as such he has a right to continue, in opinion of this court, is of no substance for the reason that as observed aforesaid these are not appointments made under the scheme of Rules, 1971 and are purely contractual appointments and the procedure provided under the Rules, 1971 has not been followed and once respondents have made it clear under its scheme to allow such applicants appointed on contractual basis to allow upto the period of March/April, 2008 merely because RPSC selected candidates are not available that will not confer any right in favour of petitioner seeking continuation of service. The judgment on which counsel placed reliance reported in (2003) 10 SCC-284 is of no assistance in the facts of instant case. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA4276CW2008 5-5.doc