IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER SB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3428/1994 Ganga Ram Kumhar & Ors. V/s The State of Rajasthan & anr. Date of Order : : 30.11.2006 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. ASOPA Mr.Rajiv Bandhu, for the petitioners. Mr.B.L. Avasthi, Addl. GA, for the respondents. By this writ petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 16.5.1994 passed by the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Umrain (Alwar) whereby services of the petitioners have been terminated in compliance of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 16.11.1993 in case of State of Rajasthan V/s Shyamlal Joshi reported in (1994) 1 SCC 593 whereby the Teachers working in Panchayat Samities as Not-selected / selected after 16.11.1985 having the qualification of N.T.C. were held not eligible. 2. The facts, in brief, of the case are that the petitioner Nos.1, 2 & 3 have been appointed on 4.11.1985, 1.8.1985 and 25.4.1986 respectively. Subsequently, services of the petitioners were terminated. The petitioners filed a writ petition, which was accepted by this Court vide order dated 3.2.1993 and the petitioners were reinstated back in service. After reinstatement, the above termination order was passed on 16.5.1994. Against the judgment dated 3.2.1993, DB civil special appeal was filed, but the same was dismissed on 2.2.2006. 3. The submission of counsel for the petitioners is that Division Bench of this Court in case of Chhoti Devi (Smt.) V/s State of Rajasthan & Ors. - 2005 92) RLW 983 has held that the person holding the National Trade Certificate could not have been appointed after the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 16.11.1993, but the said judgment was also binding from the earlier date in the cases of the persons, who were before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The relevant portion of para 11 of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:- “11....... The persons holding the National Trade Certificate could not have been appointed after the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered on 16.11.1993 and the said judgment was also binding from the earlier date in the cases of the persons, who were before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. So far as the present appellants are concerned, their judgments were not challenged before the Division Bench or before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, the services of the appellants could not have been terminated after the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 16.11.1993 in the case of Shyamlal Joshi (supra).” 4. The submission of counsel for the petitioner is that their cases were not before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 16.11.1993 when the judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court as the special appeal against the same has been dismissed recently on 2.2.2006. 5. Counsel for the State has not disputed the aforesaid position of filing of the writ petition and the judgment passed by this court. He further submits that the judgment of the Division Bench requires reconsideration. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the writ petition and further considered rival submissions of the parties. 7. In my view, the present controversy is squarely covered by the judgment of the Division Bench in Chhoti Devi (supra), therefore, the impugned termination order dated 16.5.1994 is quashed and set aside and the petitioners, who are continuing in service by virtue of stay order of this Court, will continue. 8. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. (P.S. ASOPA) J. ummed/-