Veerender Singh Siradhana, J. - (1.) THE petitioner/appellant (for short 'the petitioner') has preferred the above -noted review petition with a prayer for review of the judgment and order dated 2nd August, 2013 passed D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5641/2012.
(2.) BRIEFLY , the essential material facts necessary for the adjudication of the controversy are that the petitioner being an employee of an aided school, was appointed on a sanctioned aided post and continued to work until the institute unilaterally declined to withdraw the grant -in -aid with effect from 1st April, 2008, whereas the State Government withdrew/closed the grant -in -aid with effect from 1st March, 2012 and therefore, the petitioner ought to have been treated as an employee working against the aided post till 1st March, 2012 and thus, he was entitled to be absorbed under the Rajasthan Voluntary Rural Education Services Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2010', for short). Further, the petitioner having learnt about the refusal of the grant -in -aid by the institute, employing him, with effect from 1st April, 2008 though was allowed by the State Government; filed S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 11725 of 2010 (Sobhagya Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) whereupon the respondents were directed to consider the representation of the petitioner for absorption under the Rules of 2010 vide order dated 2nd November, 2011. However, the representation was declined vide order dated 19 January, 2012 and therefore, preferred D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5641 of 2012 (Ghisa Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) decided by this Court vide judgment and order dated 2 August, 2013 of which review is being sought. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner was appointed against a sanctioned aided post in the institute though the institute unilaterally denied to accept the grant -in -aid with effect from 31st March, 2008 whereas the State Government withdrew the grant -in -aid with effect from 1st March, 2012, hence, the petitioner ought to have been treated to be working against the sanctioned aided post and therefore, was entitled to the benefits of the Rules of 2010 for absorption and this fact is also fortified in view of the representation made by the petitioner in compliance of the directions issued on the writ application preferred by the petitioner before the learned Single Judge. Thus, an error is apparent on the face of record and therefore, the judgment and order needs to be reviewed qua the petitioner for the purpose of rehearing and decision afresh.
(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the materials available on record in the backdrop of the factual matrix.;