(1) Ramavtar Tailor Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR : O R D E R : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3808/2006. (Ramavtar Tailor Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others) DATE OF ORDER : August 18, 2008 P R E S E N T Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gopal Krishan Vyas _______________________________ Mr. Sunil Beniwal for the petitioner. Mr. S. Sarupariya for the respondent(s). BY THE COURT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that initially he was appointed as daily-rated employee vide order Annex.-2 dated 20.09.1986 by the District Education Officer (Boys), Ajmer. Later on, his services were regularized on the Class IV post by order dated 03.10.2002 with effect from 08.11.1996. The case of the petitioner is that he was transferred on his request from Ajmer district to Rajsamand (2) Ramavtar Tailor Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others district vide order Annex.-5 dated 10.07.1999. Upon transfer, the petitioner joined duties under the control of District Education Officer (Boys), Rajsamand. As per contention of the petitioner, a provisional seniority list was issued by the District Education Officer (Boys), Rajsamand and objections were accordingly invited thereto. The petitioner filed his objections with regard to wrong assignment of seniority vide representations dated 09.06.2005 and 16.06.2005, however, the objections raised by the petitioner were not properly considered and his name was not included in the eligibility list for promotion to the posts of Lower Division Clerk from among Class IV employees. Therefore, against the said action of the respondents, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court for seeking direction to assign him proper seniority. The said writ petition was registered at S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4502/2005. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court while deciding the said writ petition on 01.08.2005, passed the following order : “Thus, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of in the manner that the petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation within a period of one week from today and the respondent No.3 is directed to consider and decide the same either way in accordance with law within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the said representation. If it is found (3) Ramavtar Tailor Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others that the petitioner is entitled for any relief in accordance with law, then the same may be given to the petitioner and if the petitioner is not found entitled to the relief sought for, then a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law may be passed.” In compliance of the said order passed by this Court, a representation was filed by the petitioner and all the grounds were raised for assigning proper seniority to him on the post of Class IV, right from the date of appointment i.e., 08.11.1994. The representation of the petitioner has now been rejected while observing that as per notification dated 06.02.1987 issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, the petitioner is not entitled for his seniority from the date of regular appointment but he is entitled to assignment of seniority from the date he joined duties in the Rajsamand district in pursuance of transfer on his own request from Ajmer district. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the representation of the petitioner has illegally been rejected by the respondent District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Rajsamand while following the notification issued on 06.02.1987 because the said notification was issued in connection with Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Services Rules, 1971 and amendment was made in the said rules with regard to assignment of seniority to the teachers whereas, in the (4) Ramavtar Tailor Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others present case, the petitioner is Class IV employee and aforesaid notification dated 06.02.1987, issued in respect of the Rules of 1971, has nothing to do with governance of his services. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is claiming seniority upon transfer from one district to another from the date of regularization and the claim of the petitioner was required to be decided in accordance with the Rajasthan Class IV Service Rules, 1963. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the material on record. In my opinion, the contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is well founded and correct because the representation of the petitioner has been decided in pursuance of the direction issued by this Court. However, while deciding the petitioner's representation the respondent authorities have wrongly relied upon the directions issued under the notification dated 06.02.1987 for granting seniority to the teachers under the Rajasthan Education Service Rules, 1971 whereas, obviously, the said notification was not applicable to Class IV employees of the department. In that view of the matter, order Annex.-14 passed by the District Education Officer (Secondary), Rajsamand deserves to be quashed. (5) Ramavtar Tailor Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others As a result of the above, this writ petition is allowed. The order impugned Annex.-14 dated 25.10.2005 is quashed and set aside. The respondent District Education Officer (Secondary), Rajsamand is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law as directed by this Court in the earlier writ petition by a speaking order and considering the relevant provisions of law, within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The petitioner is permitted to raise all the legal grounds before the said authority. After deciding the representation of the petitioner and assignment of seniority to the petitioner in accordance with law, if the case of the petitioner comes within the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of L.D.C. then, the case of the petitioner shall be considered for promotion to the post of Lower Division Clerk. No order as to costs. (Gopal Krishan Vyas) J. Ojha, a.