Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) BY this petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing his reversion order dated 2/9/1996 and has sought further direction to the respondents to treat him regularised on the post of Lecturer (School Education) in Mathematics, the post on which he has been working for last 16 years since 1980 when this writ petition was filed in the year 1996.
(2.) BY the impugned order Annex. 1 dated 2/9/2996 the petitioner was reverted back to the post of Gr. II teacher. The petitioner was appointed under Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Education (Subordinate Service) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules, 1971') on the post of Lecturer (School Education) vide order dated 24/9/1980, Annex.5 on record. The said appointment though initially made on ad hoc and temporary basis on the condition that same will continue for a period of one year or till the point of time when the regularly selected candidates from Departmental Promotion Committee or Public Service Commission are available to be appointed against the said post. The said appointment was extended from time to time vide Annex.7 dated 18/11/1982 and Annex.8 dated 9/1/1984. The petitioner has also submitted that vide order dated 20/5/2000 (Annex.9) though certain candidates like Mr. Bhramdutt Kurmi Mohan Lal Sharma and Bheru Lal Mall etc. were available either through PSC or DPC in the year 1984 -85 and 1988 -89, since petitioner was continuing on the post of Lecturer (School Education) throughout upto the year 1996, there was no good reason to revert him back after a long lapse of 16 years to the post of Gr. II Teacher. Mr. Hemant Dutt, learned Counsel for the petitioner also urged that original appointment of the petitioner was under Rule 27 of the Rules, 1971 and not under Rule 28 which applies only for urgent temporary appointments and, therefore, the appointment of petitioner was made against substantive vacancy available and he was fully qualified to be appointed as Lecturer (School Education) having obtained the degree of M.Sc. B.Ed., therefore, his Initial appointment also cannot be said to be irregular or illegal in any manner. Relying upon the Constitution Bench decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. : (2006)IILLJ722SC , and decisions in cases of Rudra Kumar Sain and Ors. v. : AIR2000SC2808 and M.A. Hameed v. State of A.P. and Anr. : (2001)9SCC261 and other judgments from this Court also, Mr. Dutt submitted that there was no justification for reverting back the petitioner after a long lapse of 16 years in the year 1996 and further since petitioner has continued on the said post under the interim order granted by this Court on 1/10/1996 staying the effect and operation of reversion order uptil now, there is hardly any justification now after a long lapse of time to revert him back to the post of Gr.II Teacher. He submitted that it is fault of the State Government to have not regularised the services of petitioner on the said post ever since the year 1980 and now after such a long lapse of period the respondents cannot be permitted to revert the petitioner back.
(3.) ON the side opposite, Mr. B.L. Bhati, learned Addl. Government Counsel submits that the petitioner has no right to be regularised on the post of Lecturer (School Education) since his initial appointment itself was subject to condition that as soon as regularly selected candidates are available, he would be reverted back to the post of Gr.II Teacher and irrespective of extension granted to him from time to time, he ftes no right to be regularised on the said post. He too relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (Supra).;