POOJA MIDHA Vs. STATE
LAWS(RAJ)-2010-4-46
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on April 12,2010

MANGILAL,KAILASH CHANDRA,BALWANT SINGH,PREM RAJ,MADAN LAL,NEPAL SINGH,PREM PRAKASH,ASHOK,LOKENDRA SINGH,MANOJ KUMAR,SUJAN SINGH,MAHESH KUMAR,NILAM,SUKHVINDER SINGH,KISHAN LAL SHARMA,NARAYAN RAM,CHAGAN LAL,CHENA RAM,BHAGA RAM,POOJA MIDHA,BHERULAL MEGHWAL,DINESH MALI,KISHAN LAL CHOUDHARY,BABU RAM CHOUDHARY,SOHAN LAL KHER,SUKHDEV RAM,KEHRA RAM,GODARAM CHOUDHARY,GANESH SUGANDI,DARSHAIN THAKUR,MOHD. RAIS,SURESH CHANDRA BARETH,RAJENEDR KUMAR BHADAV,KUMARI CHETNA JAIN,SHER SINGH KALAWAT,GUNESHA RAM,MANGI LAL MEGHWAL,RAKESH KUMAR PANDIA,ANITA TAILER,CHARAN JEET KOUR,RAHUL GEHLOT,MONIKA GAUR ( SHARMA ),CHANDRA KANTA SHARMA,NAND KISHORE JAT,AKSHAYAPAL CHOUDHARY,RENU CHOUHAN,ALKESH RATHORE,HARSHA BAROT,PAWAN KUMAR DWIVEDI,JYOTI JOSHI,MUKESH JUGTAWAT Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) 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.
(2.) 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. 2579/09 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.
(3.) 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 sessions 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 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.";


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.