Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioners are all such candidates who, pursuant to a recruitment process initiated in the year 2011 by the respondent State for filling vacancies of Teachers Grade -III, were selected and were issued appointment orders in the year 2012. The appointment orders stipulated that the selected candidates were being appointed as probationers for two years and would receive fixed salary @ Rs. 8950/ - p.m. It was further provided in the appointment orders that after completion of two years satisfactory probation period, the incumbents shall be entitled to regular pay scale of the posts in the pay band of Rs. 5200 -20200/ - and grade pay of Rs. 2800/ -. The petitioners are satisfactorily serving the respondents as Teachers Grade -III till date on fixed salary without being regularized and without any fixation etc. even though the mandatory two years probation period is over long back. As per Rule 27B of the Rajasthan Service Rules, an employee upon completing two years satisfactory probation period is entitled to be confirmed in service and to receive regular pay scale and other service benefits. These benefits are being withheld by the authorities under the pretext of the pendency of S.L.Ps. Nos. 23508 -23513 of 2013 (leading case being State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Vikas Kumar Agarwal) in the Hon'ble Supreme Court in relation to the questioned selection process apprehending the ouster of the petitioners from the list of selected candidates on account of possible revision of result with the decision of the above S.L.Ps. The petitioners have approached this Court claiming that irrespective of pendency of the above S.L.Ps., they have a right to be confirmed in service upon completing satisfactory probation period of two years. As a consequence, they are entitled to receive regular pay scale and other service benefits admissible to Teachers Grade -III in the respondent department. As per the petitioners, the respondents are unjustly deferring the decision to confirm the petitioners under the pretext of pendency of aforesaid S.L.P. thereby causing immense financial and other service losses to the petitioners.
(3.) THE respondents have filed a reply wherein the only plea for countenancing the petitioners' claim is that there is a possibility of wholesale revision in the result and reshuffling of the merit pursuant to the decision of the S.L.Ps. pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikas Kumar Agarwal (supra) as well as the directions given by this Court in the case of Ramdhan Kumawat vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP No. 10622/2014).;