- (1.) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition has been considered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the matter of Ram Chandra Tripathy Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4605/2020 & connected petitions, wherein on 14.08.2020, the following order was passed:- "I.A. No.1/2020 (in SBCWP No.4496/2020) and I.A.No.1/2020 (in SBCWP No.4537/2020) (1)The applicants have preferred the present applications seeking their impleadment in these writ petitions. (2)Mr. Joshi, learned Senior Counsel, submits that any order passed in the writ petitions is likely to affect the rights of the applicants, who have been appointed as Legal Metrology Officer on deputation vide order dated 08.04.2020. (3)Learned counsel for the petitioners do not seriously oppose the applications so filed by the applicants. (4)The applications are, therefore, allowed. The applicants are impleaded as parties- respondents. Order on Stay Applications/Main Writ Petitions: (5)By way of these writ petitions, a challenge has been made to clarification/circular dated 27.12.2019, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs and consequential deputation of the private respondents as Metrology Officers. (6)Mr. G.R. Punia, learned Senior Counsel submitted that Clause(3) of the Clarification/Circular is contrary to Rule 28(3) of the Legal Metrology (General) Rules, 2011. (7)The petitioners have also challenged the order dated 09.04.2020, whereby the private respondents were posted as Metrology Officer on deputation. The consequential order dated 29.05.2020 is also under challenge by which the petitioners have been repatriated to their parent department relieving them of the deputation while declaring them to be surplus. (8)Various arguments in relation to not only the validity of Clarification/Circular but also declaring the petitioners surplus,were advanced. (9)It was also argued by Mr. Punia, learned Senior Counsel, that even if the Clarification/Circular is upheld, then also, the private respondents cannot be appointed/posted as Legal Metrology Officer, as they have not completed training. (10)Mr. Joshi, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the private respondents, submitted that they have attended more than 90% of the classes and, therefore, by virtue of Clause (3), they have been treated to have completed the course .(11)On Court's query, Mr. Dinesh Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, fairly submitted that though the private respondents have not produced any certificate of successful completion of the course but they have been posted as Legal Metrology Officer in light of the Clarification/Circular as they had produced certificate/document showing more than 75% attendance. Mr. Jain also submitted that the State has treated them eligible because the Institute at Ranchi has relieved them. (12)Mr. Sanjeet Purohit, learned counsel appearing for Union of India, while supporting Clarification/Circular, submitted that the Indian Institute of Legal Metrology, Ranchi holds/conducts theoretical as well as practical examination and it is only when candidates successfully clear these examinations, grades are awarded. It was argued that the subject Clarification/Circular, if read as a whole and interpreted purposively, clearly means that notwithstanding appearing and clearing the theoretical and practical examinations, candidate has to attend more than 75% of the classes. ( 13)Heard. (14)Rule 28 of the Rules of 2011 requires successful completion of course. The Clarification/Circular dated 27.12.2019, issued by the Government of India, cannot be read to mean that a candidate who has attended more than 75% classes will automatically be treated to have completed the course successfully. As a matter of fact, the clarification has been issued with a view to do away with awarding of marks. It clearly postulates that in place of marks,grades shall be given, that too on completion of the training. (15)Indisputably, the private respondents have not produced any certificate of completion of course before the State nor have they been able to satisfy the Court that they have successfully completed the course. (16)Even going by the version of Mr. Dinesh Jain, the State has acted only on the basis of the attendance certificate and version of the private respondents that they have attended more than 75% of classes. (17)A perusal of the order dated 09.04.2020, clearly reveals that the State has observed that the private respondents have successfully completed their course. Such presumption of the State is factually and legally incorrect. It is also the stand of the State that they have been taken on deputation because of the fact that the Indian Institute of Legal Metrology, Ranchi has relieved the private respondents from the post. (18)In the opinion of this Court, the private respondents have not completed the course successfully, so far. That being the position, they do not possess requisite qualification contemplated under Rule 28(3) of the Rules of 2011. In absence of successful completion of course, they can neither be appointed as Legal Metrology Officer nor can they be deputed on such post. The writ petitions are, thus, admitted. (19)Mr. Joshi accepts notices on behalf of private respondents;Mr. Sanjeet Purohit on behalf of Union of India and Indian Institute of Legal Metrology and Mr. Dinesh Jain on behalf of respondent-State. (20)Following interim order(s) are hereby passed:- CW No.4605/2020: (21)Effect and operation of the order dated 29.05.2020,repatriating the petitioner (Ram Chandra Tripathy) and consequential posting of Ms. Nisha Meena shall remain stayed. CW No.4537/2020: (22)effect and operation of the order dated 29.05.2020,repatriating the petitioner (Suresh Kumar) and consequential posting of Mr. Mahipal Singh shall remain stayed. CW No.4541/2020: ( 23)effect and operation of the order dated 29.05.2020,repatriating the petitioner (Ganesh Ram Yogi) and consequential posting of Ms. Shivani shall remain stayed. (24)As effect and operation of the impugned order has been stayed, it will be required of the respondent-State to restore the status quo ante and forthwith hand- over the charge to the petitioner(s) herein. CWs Nos.4183/2020 and 4214/2020: (25)Mr. Sajjan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was an oral undertaking for which no order of repatriating the petitioners has been passed. ( 26)In the facts and circumstances, it is hereby ordered that the petitioners of these writ petitions shall not be repatriated to their parent departments. (27)Stay applications in all the captioned writ petitions stand disposed of. (28)On successful completion of the courses, if the State intends to depute the private respondents as Metrology Officers, instant order will not come in way."
(2.) In that view of the matter, list this writ petition for admission on 29.09.2020.
(3.) Issue fresh notice to respondent No.8.;