Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) THE petitioner in the instant writ petition seeks to challenge the validity and correctness of the order dated 12.1.2009 (Annex. 6).
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the Director, Sanskrit Education, passed the impugned order imposing a punishment on the petitioner debarring him from being promoted and other service benefits for a period of five years from 11.2.2008 onwards and also directed that permission from appearing in any educational examination will not be given, on the basis of the degree held by him. Counsel for the petitioner submits that due to the effect of the said order, the petitioner has been deprived of being considered for promotion to the post of Teacher Gr. II. He contends that the order impugned is in the nature of one imposing punishment and was passed without following the principles of natural justice or the due procedure of law as stipulated in either Rule 16 or Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. He submits that by the order impugned a stigmatic condition was imposed that the qualification obtained by the petitioner by passing B.Ed. Examination from Indira Gandhi Open University would not be considered for the purpose of promotion etc. and the degree obtained shall not be entered in his service record. Counsel for the petitioner submits that before prosecuting the said course, the petitioner submitted repeated applications to the authorities for being granted permission to pursue the course but the application/prayers were never responded to and no refusal was ever communicated to the petitioner. Thus, assuming deemed permission, the petitioner pursued the course and was granted B.Ed. Degree by Indira Gandhi National Open University. He contends that because the course through which the petitioner procured the B.Ed. degree was a distance learning course, his duties were not adversely or prejudicially affected and no hindrance was caused in the performance of his duties as a teacher. As such he contends that the impugned order deserves to be quashed.
(3.) HE , therefore, prays that while accepting the writ petition, the impugned order be quashed and the respondents be directed to convene a D.P.C. to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion w.e.f. the date the promotions were accorded to other candidates.;