- (1.) The petitioner was appointed as Teacher Grade III upon selection in Zila Parishad, Nagaur and his appointment as Teacher was issued by the Panchayat Samiti, Jayal, vide Annex.4 dtd. 10.9.2012 posting him at Upper Primary School, Badi Khatu. The petitioner made a representation to the respondent - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur vide Annex. 5 on 18.10.2012 seeking his posting on the basis of his merit at serial No. 162 at Deedwana, I which he stated that his wife Smt. Manorama was also serving as ANM for last 9 years and therefore, even though he is permanent resident of village Bigodhana, Dist. Jhunjhunu, his posting as Teacher Grade III in Panchayat Samiti at Deedwana within the Dist. Nagaur itself be considered in terms of guidelines issued by the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department vide anenx.3 dtd.3.8.2012 which provides that the selected candidates in a particular district will be given posting in his own Panchayat Samiti a as far as possible on the basis of his merit. The learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice to this Court, a recent order of Division Bench of this Court in SB CWP No. 10799/2012 - Toga Ram v. State of Rajasthan and ors. which upon a reference made by the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench of this Court vide order dtd. 15.10.2012 has observed that the said guidelines dtd. 3.8.2012 Annex.3 even though may not be enforced as such, but that does not prevent the petitioner from approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if a suitable case for invoking such power is made out by the petitioner and Rule 23 of the Conduct Rules, 1971 which requires a prior sanction from the Government for vindication of an official act in a court of law by a Government servant will not come in way of the petitioner in approaching the Court of law in such matters. In the case of Toga Ram , the Division Bench of this Court observed as under: "These nature instructions and guidelines, which are essentially in the aid of the Rules of 1996, and are issued to fill in the gaps so as to ensure uniformity and to guard against discrimination, for all intent and purport, stand at an entirely different footing, and rather higher pedestal, than the Guidelines issued only for the purpose of transfer/posting of the existing employees. These Guidelines/Instructions do confer rights on the selected candidates and impose corresponding duties on the respondents. May be, the rights so conferred are not in absolute terms and are conditioned by the phrase "as far as possible" but and nevertheless, looking to their intent and purport, if a grievance of discrimination qua less meritorious persons is raised; and thereby, the infringement of the available right is asserted, the remedy in the writ jurisdiction cannot be held unavailable altogether. It is noteworthy that not only in the referred order dated 03.10.2012 passed in Vikram Chand's case , another learned Single Judge of this Court in Surendra's case had issued similar directions for allotment of Panchayat Samitis to the selected teachers in accord with Para 1(3) of the said order dated 03.08.2012. In fact, such directions have been issued after taking note of a fair stand taken by the respondents themselves that postings would be given to the candidates as per their merit and preference, with the exception being in relation to the identified classes of persons viz., differently-abled, widow, destitute and single female, to whom postings are given, as far as possible, in the home Panchayat Samiti, irrespective of merit position. It is but clear that the referred Administrative Instructions in the order dated 03.08.2012 have not been issued merely as the Office Guidelines of administrative nature, which may not be justiciable in the Courts of law. As observed hereinbefore, these Administrative Instructions are essentially supplemental to the Rules and are issued in the aid of the Rules. Viewed from other angle, it is but apparent that if such Instructions are allowed to be flouted, the result may be of hostile discrimination and arbitrariness in the matters of initial postings by allotment of particular Panchayat Samitis to the selected candidates. Such a scenario is not countenanced by law and the instructions in question appear to be in an effort to maintain uniformity in the matter of initial postings of the newly selected teachers. In the given set of facts and circumstances, we are clearly of the view that the referred decisions in S.L. Abbas and Joginder Singh Dhatt are of no application to the present case; and the decision in Vikram Chand's case cannot be said to be standing contrary to the applicable decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We would hasten to observe that as to whether on merits, the particular claim as made by the writ petitioners is to be allowed or not, is a matter entirely different and that would be open for adjudication at the appropriate stage. Suffice it to observe for the present purpose that the decision in Vikram Chand's case does not stand contrary to the applicable decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court. The referred question No. 1 is, therefore, required to be answered in the negative. So far as the referred question No. 2 is concerned, with respect, we are clearly of the view that Rule 23 of the Conduct Rules of 1971 has no application to the case at hands. The referred Rule 23 reads as under:-- "Rule 23. Vindication of act and character of Government servants - No Government servant shall, except with the previous sanction of Government, have recourse to any court or to the press for the vindication of any official act which has been the subject matter of adverse criticism or an attack of defamatory character. Explanation - Nothing in this rule shall limit or otherwise effect the right of any Government servant to vindicate his private acts or character." It is but apparent that the said Rule requires previous sanction of the Government if a Government servant seeks to take recourse to any Court or to the press for vindication of any official act which has been subject matter of adverse criticism or an attack of defamatory character. There is nothing of any claim of any of the writ-petitioners for vindication of any official act which has been put to criticism or attacked in a defamatory manner. What the writ-petitioners are seeking is a writ, order or direction for vindication of their own legal right of appropriate allotment of Panchayat Samiti at the time of initial posting. We do not find any warrant for the proposition that for the purpose of filing such a writ petition too, the writ-petitioners would have required a sanction of the Government. We are also unable to find any requirement for an employee on probation to seek previous permission of the Government for taking recourse to the Courts in relation to the grievance of the present nature. We do not propose to deal with this issue at any extra length and suffice it to observe for the present purpose that Article 226 is couched in the widest possible terms; and unless there is a clear bar to its jurisdiction, the High Court's powers under this Article could be exercised whenever there is any act which is against any provision of law or violative of the constitutional provisions. Of course, existence of a legal right and infringement thereof is a condition precedent for maintaining a petition under Article 226 but, there appears nothing in Rule 23 of the Conduct Rules of 1971 which, in any manner, obligates an employee to seek sanction of the Government before approaching the High Court in relation to his legal right in the matter of employment. This question is also required to be answered accordingly. Hence, our answers to the referred questions are as under :-- "(1) The decision rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court at Jaipur Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14215/2012 alongwith three other writ petitions is not running contrary to the applicable decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court. (2) Rule 23 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971 does not debar a government employee on probation to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without previous sanction of the State Government when the employee alleges existence of a legal right in relation to the employment and infringement thereof. The referred questions having been answered, these writ petitions be processed appropriately for further proceedings in accordance with law."
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, urged that his pending representation, which has not been considered for long and according to his merit, he should be given posting in Dist. Nagaur at Deedwana where his wife was also serving for 9 years as ANM and therefore, the respondents should be directed to decide that representation in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
(3.) This Court has time and again deprecated the practice of flooding the Court by filing of such premature writ petitions soon upon making the representations to the concerned authority by the petitioners and this Court in the case of Gopal Singh and anr. v. State of Rajasthan and ors. - SBCWP No. 13394/2013 decided on 26.11.2013 has held that this Court cannot be converted to act like a post office for directing the concerned authority to decide such representations of the various Government servants. The relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted below for ready reference :-- "The flood of litigation, which is brought before this Court invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction by such frivolous and premature writ petitions, wastes a lot of time of the Court even for taking up the case, hearing the counsel for the petitioners and dismiss such petitions. No selection process is allowed to be carried out by the Commission or the concerned Departments without subjecting the same to the judicial scrutiny under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on one pretext or the other. Such casual attitude in filing the writ petitions deserve to be checked, specially when the petitioners have approached this Court without even raising such grievances before the respondent RPSC itself or soon with the filing of representations on the one hand, the writ petitions are also filed on the other hand almost simultaneously and innocuous directions are sought by the petitioners for directing the respondents to decide such representations. The Court is thus turned into a post office for passing on the grievances of the petitioner to the respondents with a direction to decide the same. Before the respondents are allowed to take a stand in the matter while deciding the representations of the petitioners and candidates, the Court is called upon to pass such innocuous directions for deciding representation, which in a large number of cases has not only resulted in uncontrollable multiplicity of litigation, but has invited a flood of litigation at a premature stage with a possibility of conflicting orders by different benches. While the other constitutional and state functionaries in normal course can very well be expected to deal with all or any of such grievances or representations at their own end in appropriate manner, the writ jurisdiction need not be invoked in such cases at least till a stand in the matter is taken in the orders passed in writing by the competent authority of the respondent bodies like RPSC or the State Government Departments for testing the correctness or legality of such orders passed by them.";