- (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed with the following prayers, which are quoted thus:- "It is, therefore, prayed that your lordships may graciously be accept and allow this writ petition and may be further pleased to call for the entire record of the case and by way of appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature therefore:- I. Respondents be directed/ordered to allow the petitioners to continue their service on the post of "Pracheta" in Department of Women and Child Development Government of Rajasthan in District Dholpur and not to call for any fresh appointment till absorption of petitioners; and respondents be further directed to regularize the petitioner and provide all the consequential benefits of the post of "Pracheta" to the petitioners. II. Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioners. III. The cost of the writ petition may be awarded to the petitioner."
(2.) THE petitioners were engaged by Tulsi Shiksha Samiti, Dholpur and were sent to the respondent department pursuant to the requisition. THEy were discontinued vide order at Annexure-9 dated 27.2.2012. This is looking to the expiry of the tenure on 29.2.2012. Petitioners were, however, re-engaged vide order dated 5.3.2012 at Annexure-9, till Prachetas become available pursuance to the advertisement. THE counsel prays for a direction for continuance of petitioners till regularly selected candidates are made available. I find that a direction sought in the writ petition is different as it prays for absorption of petitioners with a further direction to regularize their services. To support the argument aforesaid, a reference of judgment of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Dr. Premlata Purohit and others Versus State of Rajasthan and others S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2584/2005 decided on 13.4.2010, has been made. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for petitioner and perused the record carefully. The perusal of the documents enclosed along with the writ petition shows that a requisition was sent to Tulsi Shiksha Samiti for engagement of Pracheta. The petitioners were engaged as their names were sent by the aforesaid Samiti. In view of above, petitioners were not regularly selected by the department. In any case, they were continued till the expiry of the tenure for which they were engaged. Petitioners have been re-engaged vide order dated 5.3.2012 till availability of regularly selected candidates pursuant to advertisement. A prayer is made for absorption and regularization of the petitioners' services. I find that petitioners have worked with the respondents for a period of two years or so, thus claim for regularization of their services is not tenable in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Versus Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. The Hon'ble Apex Court recognized right of regularization only in favour of those who have completed more than ten years of service. Therein also, direction is not to treat them as regular automatically on completion of ten years but to frame a scheme for their regularization.
(3.) IN the aforesaid background, prayer made in this writ petition is hit by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra). So far as the judgment of this court in the case of Dr. Premlata Purohit and others (supra) is concerned, the facts as well as prayer made therein were altogether different than the prayer made in this writ petition, thus judgment aforesaid has no application to the present matter. In the aforesaid background, I do not find any force in the prayer made herein, rather it is contrary to judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra), thus cannot be granted. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. This disposes of stay application also.;