- (1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 23.5.2003 with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 9.5.2003 (Annexure 6) passed by the respondent District and Sessions Judge, Sirohi by which services of the petitioner were not extended after 10.5.2003, be quashed and set aside and he may be allowed to continue in service on the post of Stenographer Gr. II (Hindi) in regular pay scale.
(2.) The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows :- This respondent District and Sessions Judge, Sirohi through advertisement Annexure-1 dated 22.11.2001 invited applications for recruitment to the post of Stenographer Gr. II (Hindi) and in pursuance of the said advertisement Annexure-1, the petitioner applied for the post of Stenographer Gr. II (Hindi). Thereafter, he was called for written test, in which he appeared and passed the same. Thereafter, he was called for type test and he also passed the type test. Thereafter, the petitioner was called for interview and he appeared for interview and again shorthand test was taken for three minutes. Thereafter, the petitioner was again called for efficiency test in which he appeared and he also passed that efficiency test. Thereafter, through order Annexure-5 dated 10.1.2003, the petitioner was given appointment on the post of Stenographer Gr. II. The further case of the petitioner is that he was given appointment against OBC quota and against a clear cut vacant post and he was selected after following due procedure for recruitment as provided under the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1986") as amended in 1999. The further case of the petitioner is that a bare perusal of his appointment order Annexure-5 dated 10.1.2003 would reveal that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Stenographer Gr. II (Hindi) in regular pay scale of Rs. 5000-150-8000 for three months, but in that appointment order Annexure-5, it was also mentioned that the petitioner would get Rs. 5000/- p.m. as fixed salary. According to the petitioner, inspite of that, deductions of the provident fund contribution, State insurance and group insurance were made from the salary of the petitioner. The further case of the petitioner is that he was allowed to continue on the post of Stenographer Gr. II (Hindi) beyond the period of three months and his services were extended upto 10.5.2003, but surprisingly through order Annexure-6 dated 9.5.2003, the services of the petitioner were not extended beyond 10.5.2003 and that order Annexure-6 dated 9.5.2003 has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondent and it has been averred by the respondent that though the services of the petitioner were not extended beyond 10.5.2003 through impugned order Annexure-6 dated 9.5.2003, but the petitioner is still in service in view of the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the Registrar, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, Hence, no interference is called for and this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. A rejoinder to the reply of the respondent was filed by the petitioner and it has been further submitted by the petitioner that through order Annexure-9 dated 27.6.2003, he was again appointed on the post of Stenographer Gr. II (Hindi) on the same terms and conditions as mentioned in the initial appointment order Annexure-5 dated 10.1.2003. An additional affidavit was also submitted by the petitioner and now his main case is that though the petitioner was selected and appointed on the post of Stenographer Gr. II (Hindi), in pursuance of the advertisement Annexure-1 dated 22.11.2001, after following due procedure for recruitment as prescribed in the Rules of 1986 amended in 1999, but he was not given regular pay scale of Rs. 5000-150-8000 and on the contrary he was given fixed salary of Rs. 5000/- p.m. and this act on the part of the respondent is wholly arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and gone through the materials available on record.;