SBCWP NO.6173/10. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6173/2010. Manvendra Ancodia & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (& Cognate cases as per Schedule annexed) Date of Order:- May 10, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ For petitioners - Sarva Shri Raj Kumar Kasana, Ramavtar Bochalya, Y.K. Sharma, Ritesh Jain, Mukesh Kumar Goyal, Ashok Singh Shekhawat, Sita Ram Samota, Aatish Jain, Omveer Singh Saini, J.K. Gupta, Deendayal Khandelwal, Rahul Tiwari, Kamlesh Kumar Bhinda, Naveen Dhuwan, Ram Pratap Saini, Bharat Saini, S.K. Beniwal, R.K. Sharma, Rajendra Prasad Sharma, Vinod Goyal, Ajay Goyal, Manish Sharma, Umesh Kumar Sharma, Shailender Balwada, R.A. Verma, Tanveer Ahmed and D.P. Pujari. Shri SN Kumawat, AAG and for respondent RPSC. **** All these petitions as per Schedule A attached herewith since involve common question, hence at joint request, are being disposed of by present order. Counsel for petitioners jointly submit that petitioners were engaged/appointed as Vidhyarthi Mitra on contract basis till the SBCWP NO.6173/10. 2 persons regularly selected by Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) and Departmental Promotion committee are made available. However, services of persons who were similarly situated while working as Vidhyarthi Mitra were terminated by respondents. A bunch of 633 writ petitions (CWP-4652/2009 & cognate cases) were decided by this Court vide judgment dt.8/5/2009 with operative part ad infra: “(36) Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of as under: I. During continuation of the work, as detailed out herein above 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 session 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 SBCWP NO.6173/10. 3 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.” Counsel submits that since issue raised in instant bunch of petitions stands decided by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment (supra), these petitions may also be decided in the light thereof. Counsel for petitioners further submit that in the light of judgment (supra), the directions have been issued by the Department of Elementary Education, Govt. of Rajasthan vide letter dt.11/8/2009 to the Director of Elementary Education Bikaner to permit all such persons working as Vidhyarthi Mitra in present academic session but their continuance will be subject to final outcome of special appeals having been preferred by respondents State against judgment dt.8/5/2009. Subsequently, the Joint Director (Training), Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner has also issued another circular on 17/9/2009 to the same effect. Some of the petitioners have raised their SBCWP NO.6173/10. 4 grievance that despite judgment dt.8/5/2009 of the Court and directions issued by State Government, they have not been permitted to work/discharge duties as Vidhyarthu Mitra. However, it has not been disputed by Government Counsel about controversy involved herein being decided by this Court vide judgment dt.8/5/2009 alongwith directions (supra) - against which, their only defence is that special appeals (SA(W)-1237/2009 & 525/2009 besides other cognate appeals) have been preferred by respondents State and wherein vide order dt.16/12/2009, the Division Bench ordered ad infra: “Since in the impugned judgment, a direction exists at para 36(IV) with regard to termination of Vidhyarthi Mitra on the basis of State level seniority list, though appointments were not made on State level list, therefore, operation of aforesaid para 36(IV) may be stayed because in absencde of termination, selected candidates cannot be appointed. Looking to the submission made, operation of the direction in para 36(IV) of the impugned judgment shall remain stayed.” However, as regards contention of petitioners Government Counsel submits that directions have been issued by the department concerned, and District Education Officer / concerned officer will ensure that in the light of SBCWP NO.6173/10. 5 judgment dt.08/05/09 (supra), the petitioners may be permitted to join and discharge their duties as Vidhyarthi Mitra; but their continuance will be subject to final outcome of special appeals preferred by respondents State, which has not been objected by petitioners' Counsel, as well. In the light of what has been observed in CWP-4652/2009 vide judgment dt.8/5/2009 alongwith directions quoted (supra), all these writ petitions as per Schedule A attached herewith stand disposed of; and the District Education Officer/concerned officer will also ensure that in the light of judgment (supra), the petitioners shall be permitted to join and discharge their duties as Vidhyarthi Mitra; however, it would be subject to afore quoted stay order and final outcome of special appeals (SA(W)-1237/2009 & 525/2009 besides cognate appeals) would be binding upon all the petitioners, as well. No costs. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil SBCWP NO.6173/10. 6 Schedule- Judgment dated 10/5/2010. in CWP-6173/2010 & Cognate cases *** S.No. CWP Nos. / Name of Petitioners Versus State & Ors 1.6173/2010 Manvendra Ancodia & Anr. 2.6188/2010 Ram Dayal Yadav & Ors. 3.6198/2010 Vishnu Kumar & Anr. 4.6013/2010 Suraj Mal Nagar 5.2915/2010 Rajnish Kumar Sharma 6.2941/2010 Hari Mohan Meena 7.4461/2010 Kailash Chand & Ors. 8.4585/2010 Pinki Pareek & Anr. 9.5061/2010 Kapeesh Kumar 10.5829/2010 Ganpat Lal Bagotiya 11.5842/2010 Raghuveer Singh Yadav 12.5847/2010 Rohit Kumar 13.5876/2010 Ram Ray Mali & Ors. 14.5877/2010 Dharmraj Agrawal & Ors. 15.5896/2010 Amichand Chandoliya & Ors. 16.5908/2010 Lokesh Kumar Sharma & Ors. 17.5919/2010 Renu Saini 18.5947/2010 Manoj Kumar & Ors. 19.5957/2010 Nirnjna Gautam & Anr. 20.5966/2010 Jai Singh Gurjar & anr. 21.5967/2010 Hawa Singh Famra 22.6054/2010 Ganpat Lal Sharma & Ors. 23.6143/2010 Krishna Kumar 24.6350/2010 Mukesh Kumar Sharma & Ors. 25.6201/2010 Dinesh Chand Sharma & Anr. 26.6225/2010 Anita Kumari & Ors. 27.6305/2010 Mahendra Kumar Meena 28.6307/2010 Chote Lal Meena 29.6308/2010 Rajendra Prasad Sharma 30.6309/2010 Jagdish Prasad Sharma 31.6310/2010 Rajendra Prasad Gurjar 32.6329/2010 Babu Lal Jat 33.6339/2010 Nitin Kumar Mishra SBCWP NO.6173/10. 7 34.6343/2010 Hetram Sharma 35.6345/2010 Anil Bhatt & Anr. 36.6371/2010 Mahesh Kumar Yadav 37.6380/2010 Subhash Chand Meel & Ors. 38.6481/2010 Rakesh Kumar Sharma & Anr. 39.6487/2010 Archana Nimbhoria Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil