Hon'ble Dr. KOTHARI, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsels.
(2.) THE learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that the controversy involved in these cases are squarely covered by the decision of this Court dtd.25.5.2010 rendered in SBCWP No.8987/2009 Rekha Ram and Ors. V/s State of Rajasthan by which this Court following earlier decision in the case of Sandroop V/s State of Rajasthan and ors. - SBCWP No.9173/2009 decided on 19.3.2010 and the Division Bench judgment in DBSAW No.580/2009 decided on 15.2.2010, disposed of the writ petitions of Vidhyarthi Mitras in same terms. THE Relevant extract of the said judgment is quoted below for ready reference: "THE learned counsel for the parties submit that part of Condition No.4 has been stayed by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court Bench, Jaipur, however, that will not affect the fate of these writ petitions and both the counsel submit that similar directions, subject to the effect of the interim order as passed by the Division Bench of the Jaipur Bench of the High Court, may be passed in these matters also. In view of the above reasons, all these writ petitions are disposed of in the light of the directions issued in the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2578/ 09 Devendra Kumar & Ors. V. State and connected matters decided vide judgment dated 15.5.2009 and in the light of the decision given in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4652/09 and connected matters decided on 8.5.2009 with further clarification that the petitioners may satisfy the competent authority, who may be District Education Officer or the Block Elementary Education Officer about the genuineness of the documents as well as continuity of their working in the year 2008-2009. THE directions given in the above writ petitions are incorporated in these writ petitions which are as under: - I. During continuation of the work, as detailed out hereinabove, 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 temporary appointments 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 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." It is further made clear that the portion which has been stayed by the Division Bench of this Court shall remain stayed in the light of the order of the Division Bench and that is about the preparation of the seniority list at State level. THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioners are also directed to submit the court fees of Rs. 25/- for each of the petitioners in case it is a joint writ petition and certified copy of this order may be issued to the petitioners only subject to payment of this Court fee. (PRAKASH TATIA), J." The Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 580/2009 in SBCWP No. 4187/2009 has held as under: "These appeals involving identical issues have been considered together and are taken up for disposal by this common order. The appellants-petitioners were engaged as "Vidhyarthi Mitra" to undertake teaching work in schools on contract basis under the scheme framed by the State Government; they approached this Court by filing the respective writ petitions stating the grievance, inter alia, that their services would not be continued after summer break. It appears that the engagement of some of incumbents continued during the pendency of the litigation pursuant to the orders passed by the Court. Thereafter, a batch of petitions involving similar issues was decided at Jaipur Bench of this Court on 08.05.2009 with certain directions essentially to the effect that the respondents shall consider the cases of the petitioners for continuation in service until the regular selections were made but with the observations that the petitioners would not be entitled for salary during the period of vacations i.e., when the schools remain closed. Following the said decision, the respective writ petitions as preferred by the present appellants have been decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the same terms and with the same directions. Hence, these appeals. It is noticed that the intra-court appeals as filed at the Jaipur Bench against the order dated 08.05.2009 have since been considered and dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Saini & 126 Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 2010(1.) WLC (Raj.) 171. In the said decision, this Court has clearly held while dismissing the similar nature appeals that the appellants-petitioners are not entitled to claim regularization on the post on which appointments were given on contractual basis; that the appellants-petitioners, not appointed as per the recruitment rules, are not entitled to make a claim for equal pay; and they are not entitled to make a claim of salary for summer vacations. We do not find any ground to differ from the view already expressed by the co-ordinate Bench. Accordingly, these appeals stand dismissed. No costs. (Dinesh Maheshwari), J. (A.M. Sapre), J." The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that vide letter dtd.4.6.2010 Annex.l in SBCWP. No.6106/2010, the Dy. Secretary, Elementary Education Department of the State has already communicated to the Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner that such -Vidhyarthi Mitras employed on contract basis of the Academic Session 2009-2010 shall be continued for Academic Session 2010-2011 and therefore, the petitioners contract for service as Vidhyarthi Mitras upto the end of Academic Session 2010-2011 can be continued in terms of said order. However, he submitted that under the Rationalisation and Equalisation policy of the State Government for declaring the teachers/ Vidhyarthi Mitras as surplus in the schools in order to maintain ratio of teachers- students, the Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner had sought guidance from the Dy. Secretary, Elementary Education, Government of Rajasthan vide Annex.4 dtd.26.6.2010 that in the aforesaid communication dtd.4.6.2010 if additional line about the Vidhyarthi Mitras to be transferred and absorbed in other blocks/Tehsils and Districts against the vacant post may also be absorbed is added, that would facilitate the transfer and absorption under Rationalisation/Equalisation Policy of the State Government, of present Vidhyarthi Mitras also. The contents of letters dtd.4.6.2010 and 26.6.2010 are reproduced hereunder for ready reference: JUDGEMENT_1268_RAJLW2_2011Image1.jpg JUDGEMENT_1268_RAJLW2_2011Image2.jpg Mr. R.L. Jangid, learned AAG does not dispute existence of these two communications. In view of aforesaid, these writ petitions are also disposed of in view of earlier decision of this Court by Single Bench as well as Division Bench and aforesaid quoted decisions of the State Government vide letter dtd.4.6.2010 and 26.6.2010 and the respondents shall continue the contract of employment of present Vidhyarthi Mitras- petitioners who have worked for Academic Session 2009-2010 till the end of Academic Session 2010-2011 and shall also consider the case of present petitioners - Vidhyarthi Mitras for transfer and absorption under the Rationalisation and Equalisation Policy also in other Blocks/Tehsil and Districts as requested by the Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner vide letter dtd.26.6.2010 to the Principal Secretary, School and Sanskrit Education, Jaipur vide Annex.4 dtd.26.6.2010. The decision shall not confer any right on the petitioners - Vidhyarthi Mitras to continue in said position after the end of Academic Session 2010-2011 unless State Government itself takes a decision otherwise in this regard.
(3.) THESE directions will apply to the present petitioners and all other similarly situated Vidhyarthi Mitras who have worked for Academic Session 2009-2010, even if they have not approached this Court by way of a writ petition and the respondents will be bound to give similar treatment to all other similarly situated person without requiring them to approach this Court by way of fresh writ petition. Those Vidhyarthi Mitras who worked for the Academic Session 2008- 2009 or prior to that but did not work as such for the Academic Session 2009- 2010, are not entitled to the aforesaid relief as such. However, if such Vidhyarthi Mitras make any representation and vacancies are still available with the State Government for Academic Session 2010-2011, their cases may be considered for reemployment. If however, it is not found appropriate to reemploy such Vidhyarthi Mitras,the Principal Secretary may pass one common order for such Vidhyarthi Mitras employed for Academic Session 2008-2009 or prior to that and it will not be necessary for all respective District Education Officers or any other authority to pass separate orders on such representations. The aforesaid writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ;