1 SB Civil Writ Petition No.9872/2008 Smt. Seema Sidana. vs. State of Raj. & Ors. & connected matters 1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9872/2008 Smt. Seema Sidana. vs. State of Raj. & Ors. 2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4743/2009 Smt. Santosh Kumari. vs. State of Raj. & Ors. 3. S.B. Civil Misc. Application No.69/2009 Smt.Kavita Rani & Ors. vs. State of Raj. & Ors. 4. S.B. Civil Misc. Application No.70/2009 Smt.Shashi Batra. vs. State of Raj. & Ors. 5. S.B. Civil Misc. Application No.71/2009 Smt.Alka Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Raj. & Ors. 6. S.B. Civil Misc. Application No.72/2009 Smt.Rekha Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Raj.& Ors. 7. S.B. Civil Misc. Application No.73/2009 Subhash Chandra & Ors. vs. State of Raj. & Ors. Date : 28.5.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.CS Kotwani ) for the petitioners. Mr.Sanjay Mathur ) Mr.RL Jangid ) for the respondents. Mr.Rajesh Bhati ) - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 SB Civil Writ Petition No.9872/2008 Smt. Seema Sidana. vs. State of Raj. & Ors. & connected matters Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.CS Kotwani pointed out that this Court passed interim order on 23.10.2008 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8346/2008 (Miss Poonam Rani vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) which is as under :- “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for District Sri Ganganagar against the notified vacancies of 647 for Probodhak only 487 candidates have so far been appointed vide Annex.4 dated 29th September, 2008. He further submits that the petitioner is better qualified than the persons who are being appointed or who have been appointed under Order Annex.4 dated 29th September 2008. Therefore, the petitioner has right to be considered in preference over such candidates. Learned counsel further submits that in similar matter, this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8023/2008 – Usha Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. On 17.10.2008 while issuing notice, the respondent were directed to restrain the State Government to fill up all unfilled remaining vacancies of Probodhak in District Bhilwara. In view of the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for 3 SB Civil Writ Petition No.9872/2008 Smt. Seema Sidana. vs. State of Raj. & Ors. & connected matters the petitioner, issue notice to the respondents as to why this writ petition be not admitted. Issue notice of the stay petition also. Notices returnable within four weeks. Notices be given dasti to learned counsel for the petitioner. In the meanwhile, the respondents are restrained to fill up unfilled remaining vacancies of Probodhak in District Sri Ganganagar.” Another order was passed on next day i.e. on 24.10.2008 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8564/2008 (Mamta Nagpal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) which is as under :- “The petitioner is having teaching experience with recognized institutions and she faced process of selection to be considered for appointment as Prabodhak in district Sri Ganganagar. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that at the first instance the respondents invited applications from eligible candidates to fill in 647 vacancies of the Prabodhaks and that was subsequently enhanced up to 682. In all appointments have been given to about 4 SB Civil Writ Petition No.9872/2008 Smt. Seema Sidana. vs. State of Raj. & Ors. & connected matters 583 persons but no appointment is given to the persons having teaching experience in recognized institutions. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that no criteria for making selections was disclosed by the respondents, however, as per unofficial information available higher marks were given to the persons having teaching experience in capacity of para teachers and that resulted into discrimination amongst the candidates facing process of selection. In the meanwhile the respondents are restrained to fill up all remaining vacancies of Prabodhaks in district Sri Ganganagar. However, it shall be open to make appointments of the persons as Prabodhak in compliance of the directions given by the Courts in specific cases.” It is apparent from the order dated 23.10.2008 that in earlier S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8023/2008 (Usha Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) on 17.10.2008 interim order was passed restraining the State from filling up the unfilled remaining vacancies of Prabhodhak in District Bhilwara. Following the same order, the order 5 SB Civil Writ Petition No.9872/2008 Smt. Seema Sidana. vs. State of Raj. & Ors. & connected matters dated 23.10.2008 was passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8346/2008 wherein the State was restrained from filling up the unfilled remaining vacancies of Prabhodhak in District Sri Ganganagar. By order dated 24.10.2008, again the State was restrained from filling up the unfilled remaining vacancies of Prabhodhak in District Sri Ganganagar but it was made clear that it shall be open to the State to make appointments of persons as Prabhodhak in compliance of the directions given by the Courts in specific cases. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issues involved in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8023/2008, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8346/2008 and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8564/2008 are entirely different. According to him, no criteria for making selections was disclosed by the respondents and as per the petitioners' information, some higher marks were given for teaching experience in capacity of para teachers and that resulted into discrimination amongst the candidates facing process of 6 SB Civil Writ Petition No.9872/2008 Smt. Seema Sidana. vs. State of Raj. & Ors. & connected matters selection. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State submitted that the said issue has been decided by the Single Bench of this Court at Jaipur against the petitioner upholding grant of higher marks to certain class of persons. According to learned counsel Mr.Sanjay Mathur with Mr.Manoj Bhandari, the operation of the said order which was passed as interim was challenged before the Division Bench wherein interim order has been passed. Certain writ petitions came before this Court wherein the issue involved was whether the person who remained on vacation or has been assigned some duties during service period, whether that period for which he could not discharge the actual duties, could have been counted in the experience period of the petitioner. This issue was decided by this Court in its judgment rendered in SB Civil Writ Petition No.8796/2008 (Smt. Vishnu Kanwar vs. State of Rajasthan and others) decided on 21.11.2008 reported in 2009 WLC (Raj.) UC 186, 7 SB Civil Writ Petition No.9872/2008 Smt. Seema Sidana. vs. State of Raj. & Ors. & connected matters following the decision given in the case of Beeram Ram Choudhary vs. State of Rajasthan and others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6273/2008) referred in Vishnu Kanwar's case (supra). The writ petitions wherein the issue was covered by Vishnu Kanwar's/Beeram Ram's case have already been decided by this Court and some of which are S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.2820/2009, 129/2009, 2821/2009, 2815/2009 and 2818/2009. These writ petitions are allowed and the respondents were directed to consider the period consumed by the petitioners in undergoing training necessary for appointment as Prabodhak, period of leave sanctioned or leave availed for the reasons beyond control as part of the period taking experience acquired, then such period is required to be taken into consideration and cannot be treated as break in service. This Court directed the respondents to give expeditiously the effect to the select list of the petitioners and similarly situated persons and if it is found that they are eligible, then the results will be declared and the petitioners be given relief accordingly. 8 SB Civil Writ Petition No.9872/2008 Smt. Seema Sidana. vs. State of Raj. & Ors. & connected matters Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that because of the reason that the orders passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8023/2008, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8346/2008 and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8564/2008 are being treated to be a blanket stay by the respondents, therefore, they are not being given appointment. It is submitted that the State authorities are not examining the issue involved and irrespective of the claim of any of the petitioners referred above inspite of the fact that on 24.10.2008, it was made clear that the respondents will be free to make appointment of the persons as Prabodhak in compliance to the directions given by the Courts in specific case. Since the controversy involved in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8023/2008, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8346/2008 and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8564/2008 is entirely different than the issue which has been decided by this Court and in the matter, there was issue of service break, therefore, all the orders passed in the cases where appointments have been denied on the ground 9 SB Civil Writ Petition No.9872/2008 Smt. Seema Sidana. vs. State of Raj. & Ors. & connected matters of service break and this Court directed to consider the case of the petitioners then that is a specific order passed for giving appointment to the petitioners who are falling in the category of claim which is the claim raised by the petitioners in S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.2820/2009, 129/2009, 2821/2009, 2815/2009 and 2818/2009 and there is no bar of giving appointment to the petitioners who have been specifically given relief by this Court. In view of the above, S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.9872/2008 and 4743/2009 and S.B. Civil Misc. Applications No.69/2009, 70/2009, 71/2009, 72/2009 and 73/2009 are allowed and the order passed in these cases be treated to be an order passed specifically for giving appointment to the petitioners in case the petitioners are found eligible in the light of the decision given in Vishnu Kanwar's case (supra). (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya