Rajasthan High Court: While exercising its civil writ jurisdiction, the single Judge Bench of Pushpendra Singh Bhati J., granted petitioner conditional appointment to the post of Prabhodhak (Teacher). However, the Court clarified that such an appointment shall, however, be prospective in nature. In case, the right of retrospectivity survives, the parties shall be at liberty to contest the same at the time of final disposal of the writ petition.
While considering the case of the petitioners on the ground of parity, the relaxation in the advertisement, crystallization of their rights from the date of filing of the writ petition and their long tenure of service on the post of Para Teacher, the Bench directed the State government to accord appointment to the petitioner on the post of Prabodhak within 3 months.
In the matter at hand, an advertisement was issued for the post of Prabodhak (‘Teacher’) which contained a condition stating that those persons who are in their second year of Basic School Teacher Course (‘BSTC/course’) will be given an appointment and on completion of the course, their candidature will be regularized.
The petitioner got supplementary in their second year of the course due to which their candidature was rejected on the ground that they didn’t possess the degree in BSTC. A writ petition was filed in 2008 challenging the rejection, and an order of representation was passed. Pursuant to the same order, several persons were appointed, while the rest were not.
The core point raised by the petitioner was that 5 other persons who were similarly situated and suffering ineligibility due to supplementary in the BSTC Course, had been given appointment. Since the petitioner’s eligibility was same as that of those 5 persons, and they were still rendering their services as Para Teacher, therefore, it will be appropriate to pass an order of appointment in their favour as well, while treating them on a par with the said 5 persons.
The respondent vehemently opposed the submission made on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that those persons were working only with the strength of an interim order passed by this Court, whereas their initial appointments were still under cloud. The selection process of the year 2008 had already culminated into finality and therefore, the relief as prayed for by the petitioner would be detrimental to the cause of justice.
Petitioners filed another writ petition, wherein an order was issued directing the State to decide the petitioner’s representation in light of the note in the advertisement, and their candidatures were rejected. Aggrieved by the said rejection, petitioners again filed a writ petition in 2015, and during the pendency of the same, in 2021 the State government abolished the said post.
The Bench took note of the fact that those 5 persons, as above, were appointed even being on the same pedestal, as that of the present petitioners, and continued upto 2021 from the date of appointment and were still continuing.
The Bench also kept into consideration that the present petitioners were still continuing on the post of Para Teachers from their initial date of appointment. Thus, in the interest of justice, the respondents were directed to keep the petitioners on a par with those 5 persons, giving them appointment on the post of Prabhodhak.
The Court clarified that such appointment shall, however, be prospective in nature because this was an interim order. In case, the right of retrospectivity survives, the parties shall be at liberty to contest the same at the time of final disposal of the writ petition.
[Kalyan Mal Balai v State, 2023 SCC OnLine Raj 566, decided on 10-02-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner- Advocate Shreyash Ramdev;
For the respondent- Deputy Government Counsel Bhawna Jangid.
