Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) NONE appears on behalf of petitioners though name of Mr. Pappu Sangwa, is shown in the cause list.
(2.) THE present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers: - It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the petitioners may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction: - (i) The impugned order dated 27.1.2009 (Annexure -9) may kindly be quashed and set -aside and the respondents be directed to continue the petitioners against the sanctioned post on the basis of their eligibility, qualifications etc. etc. (ii) That the respondents be restrained from deputing any other persons against the sanctioned posts on which the petitioners are already working. (iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be made in favour of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is no more res -integra and is rather covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Shimla & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP No. 5254/2005, decided on 10.04.2014 along -with 11 connected writ petitions), wherein this Court has held as under: -
(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that these writ petitions were filed in the year 2005 apprehending termination or non -absorption of present petitioners in the new project known as "Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan" and also claiming their absorption and continuance in the new project on similar positions. As far as the threatened termination from service is concerned, that is taken care by the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent -Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Mr. P.R. Singh that their services are not being sought to be terminated prematurely so long as the project "Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan" continues and the fact remains that the petitioners have so continued in the new "Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan" up till now. However, he urged that the equivalence of post or designation may not be maintained since such designations may not be simply available in the new organization structure for "Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan". That aspect of the matter cannot possibly give rise to any legal rights to the petitioner to claim the same equivalent post or designation in the new "Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan" also and three categories of employment are stipulated in the communication Annex. 10 dtd. 13.1.2004, namely, Senior Specialist, Junior Specialist and Assistant and the fixed monthly honorarium has also been given in the said communication. The petitioners have already been continued in the said "Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan" in these three categories and therefore, the said issue of equivalence or designation of post does not call for any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.;