Disposed

Ishwar Prasad and Anr. v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC3 Mar 2010CW/2039/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposes of multiple writ petitions filed by persons working as Vidhyarthi Mitra on a contract basis. The Court observed that the petitions touch upon the termination of such services. Relying on the judgment dated 08/05/09 in CWP-4652/2009, the Court disposed of the instant petitions without examining individual merits of the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Common court disposed of the petitions with the District Education Officer to ensure petitioners can join duties subject to stay order and final outcome of special appeals.

Ishwar Prasad and Anr. Vs State of Raj and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2010)

¶1

CW 11070/09

¶2

//1//

¶3

In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench

¶4

¶5

1-Civil Writ Petition No.11070/2009

¶6

Sarita & (2) Ors Versus State & Ors. 2-Civil Writ Petition No.1094/2010

¶7

Ram Avtar Meena Versus State & Ors.

¶8

3-Civil Writ Petition No.2039/2010

¶9

Ishwar Prasad & Anr Versus State & Ors.

¶10

4-Civil Writ Petition No.2043/2010

¶11

Amar Chand Kumawat Versus State & Ors.

¶12

5-Civil Writ Petition No.2045/2010

¶13

Pannalal Kumawar Versus State & Ors.

¶14

6-Civil Writ Petition No.2476/2010

¶15

Hitesh Kr. Sharma Versus State & Ors. 7-Civil Writ Petition No.2734/2010 Bhagwant Lal Meena Versus State & Ors.

¶16

8-Civil Writ Petition No.2749/2010

¶17

Dhan Prakash Sharma Versus State & Ors.

¶18

Date of Order ::: 03/03/10

¶19

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi

¶20

Sarva Shri Ram Pratap Saini, SR Choudhary, Hemant Kr. Sharma, Satish Kr. Saini, and Amit S.Shekhawat, for Petitioners : Mr. SN Kumawat, AAG and for respondent PSC Mr. Ganesh Meena, Govt. Counsel for respondents

¶21

Since all these petitions involve

¶22

common question, hence at joint request, were heard together and are being disposed of by present order.

¶23

Grievance of the petitioners is that that petitioners were engaged/appointed as Vidhyarthi Mitra on contract basis till the persons regularly selected by Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) and Departmental Promotion committee are made available. However, services of persons who were similarly situated while working as Vidhyarthi Mitra were terminated by respondents. Some of

¶24

CW 11070/09

¶25

//2//

¶26

the petitioners have raised their grievance that despite judgment dt.08/05/09 of the Court and directions issued by State Government, they have not been permitted to work/discharge duties as Vidhyarthi Mitra .

¶27

Counsel jointly submit that the issue raised in instant petitions has been examined by this Court vide judgment dt.15/02/2010 in Kokila Sharma & Ors. Vs. State (CWP-8969/2009 & cognate cases , wherein this Court took note of judgment dt.08/05/2009 in a bunch of 633 writ petitions (CWP-4652/2009 & cognate cases) and so also stay order dt.16/12/09 passed by Division Bench in SA(W)-1237/2009 & 525/2009, and finally observed ad infra:

¶28

“In the light of what has been observed in CWP-4652/2009 vide judgment dt.08/05/2009 alongwith directions quoted (supra), all these writ petitions as per Schedule A attached herewith stand disposed of; and the District Education Officer/concerned officer will also ensure that in the light of judgment (supra), the petitioners shall be permitted to join and discharge their duties as Vidhyarthi Mitra; however, it would be subject to afore quoted stay order and final outcome of special appeals (SA(W)-1237/09 & 525/2009 besides cognate appeals ) would be binding upon all the petitioners, as well. No costs.”

¶29

However, Government Counsel submit that necessary facts have not been made available

¶30

CW 11070/09 //3//

¶31

by the petitioners. But this fact could not have been controverted that the petitions relate to termination of persons having been engaged/appointed as Vidharthi Mitra on contract basis till persons regularly selected by RPSC & DPC are made available. As regards judgment (supra), it has not been disputed by Government Counsel about controversy being decided by the Court.

¶32

This Court has already taken note of directions issued by Department of Elementary Education Government of Rajasthan vide letter dt.11/08/09 permitting all such persons working as Vidhyarthi Mitra in present academic session but their continuance will be subject to final outcome of special appeals ( SA(W)-1237/2009 & 525/2009) preferred by the respondents State against judgment dt. 08/05/2009. Individual merit of writ petitioners has not been examined by this Court. In the light of what has been observed (supra) vide judgment dt.15/02/2010 in CWP8969/2009 (Kokila Sharma & Ors Vs. State & Ors ), instant writ petitions stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶33

( Ajay Rastogi), J.

¶34

K.Khatri/p3/
11070CW09-Mar3Dsp-Vidharthi-3rd-lot.doc

Ishwar Prasad and Anr. v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ishwar Prasad and Anr. v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Official Liquidator Vs Man Singh and Ors.

Official Liquidator Vs Shyam Nath

Om Kothari Enterprises Ltd. Vs

Panna Lal Kumawat Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Shasi Rani Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Mannu Ram Vs State of Raj and Ors.