Partly allowed

Girdhar Singh v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC13 Aug 2018CW/9469/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge quashed an order reducing the 'dying cadre' of Pracheta posts from 34 to 18 without reasoning. The 09.05.2017 order was upheld. Petitioners granted 60 days to consider their service claims under Dr. Premlata Purohit precedent.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 18.07.2017 was quashed. Respondents directed to maintain the order dated 09.05.2017 and consider petitioners' service claims per Dr. Premlata Purohit within 60 days.

Girdhar Singh Vs State and Ors. — Public Procurement and Tenders | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ No. 8865/2017

¶3

Rashim Panwar W/o Ramesh Panwar, D/o Shri Brijraj Singh Panwar, Aged about 38 years, R/o House No.98, Adarsh Nagar, Kota Bariyor, Ward No.1, Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶7

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Chittorgarh, District Chittorgarh.

¶8

The Commissioner, Women Empowerment, Directorate, J-7, Jhalana Shansthanik Region, Jaipur.

¶9

The Deputy Director, Women and Child Development Department, District Chittorgarh.

¶10

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ No. 9360/2017 Prabha Solanki ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan And Ors. ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ No. 9469/2017 Girdhar Singh ----Petitioner Versus State And Ors ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ No. 9178/2017 Bhagwati Aheer ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan And Ors. ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ No. 9434/2017 Kadar Baksh ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan And Ors. ----Respondent

¶11

[CW-8865/2017]

¶12

(2 of 7)

¶13

S.B. Civil Writ No. 9460/2017
Harji Ram Choudhary
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 8881/2017
Smt. Usha Beragi
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan And Ors.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 8882/2017
Smt. Chanda Garg
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan And Ors.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 8907/2017
Smt. Jyoti Sharma
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan And Ors.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 8906/2017
Anamika Gill
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan And Ors.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 8883/2017
Smt. Ujala Prajapat
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan And Ors.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 8929/2017
Smt. Jaimala Sharma
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan And Ors.

[CW-8865/2017]

(3 of 7)

----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ No. 9452/2017

Aruna Choudhary

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan And Ors.

¶22

----Respondent

¶23

S.B. Civil Writ No. 8866/2017

Shabnam Khan

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan And Ors.

¶28

----Respondent

¶29

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.S. Bhaleria For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dinesh Ojha for Mr. P.R. Singh, AAG

¶30

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶31

Order

¶32

13/08/2018

¶33

The petitioners have preferred these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming in sum and substance, the following reliefs:

¶34

“(i) The order Annex.P/12 dated 18.07.2017 may kindly be quashed and set aside qua district Chittorgarh. The respondents may kindly be directed not to terminate the services of the petitioner as Pracheta.

¶35

(ii) The respondents may kindly be further directed to allow the petitioner to work on the post of Pracheta till the availability of the project with all consequential benefits.

¶36

(iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

¶37

[CW-8865/2017]

¶38

(4 of 7)

¶39

(iv) Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with cost.”

¶40

The petitioners are holding the post of Pracheta. The persons holding the post of Pracheta are supposed to discharge the duties under the Panchayati Raj Department at Block level. The persons to be appointed on such post should be the teachers working in recognized private schools/institutions through the placement agency and were required to be qualified for such post.

¶41

The respondents issued an advertisement dated 20.05.2009 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for selection on the post of Pracheta through the placement agency. The petitioners, who were otherwise eligible as per the aforesaid advertisement, participated in the recruitment process, and after completion thereof, the petitioners were given appointment on the post of Pracheta through the placement agency. The tenure of the Pracheta was extended from time to time. However, at a later point of time, when the petitioners’ services were being terminated, appropriate protection was granted by this Court in another writ petitions.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioners has shown to this Court the order dated 09.05.2017, whereby the respondents have come out with a categorical position that 214 posts of Female Supervisor were sanctioned to work at every block level.

¶43

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that while such new posts were being created against the original 248 posts of Pracheta, the respondents took note of the fact that 34 Pracheta were still working, and therefore, while 214 posts of Pracheta were abolished, the respondents passed the order in

¶44

[CW-8865/2017]

¶45

(5 of 7)

¶46

respect of such 34 posts to create an appropriate dying cadre. The order dated 09.05.2017 is reproduced as follows:

¶47

“izpsrkvksa ds Lohdr 248 inksa esa ls 214 in lekIr fd;s tkrs gSaA rFkk 34 in MkbZax dSMj ¼Dying Cadre½ ds vUrxZr j[ks tkrs gSaA ftldk foLrr fooj.k ifjf'k"B ^v^ ij layXu gSaA

¶48

;g vkns'k foRr ¼fu;e½ foHkkx dh vkbZ-Mh- la[;k 101504821 fnukad 05-01-2016 ,oa foRr ¼O;;&2½ foHkkx dh vkbZMh la[;k 161700451 fnukad 28-04-2017 ls izkIr lgefr ds vuqlj.k esa tkjh fd;k tkrk gSA”

¶49

It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that in an arbitrary manner, the respondents have limited the dying cadre from 34 posts to 18 posts by passing the order dated 18.07.2017, which reads as under:

¶50

“foHkkx ds iwoZ vkns'k Øekad 17038 fnukad 09-05-2017 ds vfrØe.k ¼Supersession½ esa izpsrkvksa ds Lohdr 248 inksa esa ls 230 in lekIr fd;s tkrs gSaA rFkk 18 in MkbZax dSMj ¼Dying Cadre½ ds vUrxZr j[ks tkrs gSaA ftldk foLrr fooj.k ifjf'k"B ^v^ ij layXu gSaA

¶51

;g vkns'k foRr ¼fu;e½ foHkkx dh vkbZ-Mh- la[;k 101703436 fnukad 14-07-2017 ls izkIr lgefr ds vuqlj.k esa tkjh fd;k tkrk gSA”

¶52

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the controversy in respect of service of the Pracheta has already been decided by this Hon’ble Court in Dr. Premlata Purohit Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2584/2005 decided on 13.04.2010) , whereby the State Government was directed to treat all the petitioners in the said writ petition, who were Pracheta, as Civil Servants and the petitioners therein were held entitled for extension of appropriate service benefits.

¶53

The judgment of Dr. Premlata Purohit (supra) was upheld by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in State of

¶54

[CW-8865/2017]

¶55

(6 of 7)

¶56

Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Dr. Premlata Purohit & Ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.387/2010) decided on 23.01.2017.

¶57

Learned counsel for the petitioners makes a limited submission that the case of the petitioners may be considered while keeping in mind the judgment of Dr. Premlata Purohit (supra) , and also the order of creating dying cadre dated 09.05.2017 may be upheld while treating the order dated 18.07.2017 reducing the dying cadre as arbitrary and unlawful. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents has however opposed the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners are working with a placement agency, and therefore, they could not have been given the relief of being considered at par with the petitioners in the Dr. Premlata Purohit (supra) .

¶58

Learned counsel for the respondents has however, referred to the judgment of Smt. Suman Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8958/2011) decided on 10.07.2013, whereby this Hon’ble Court has dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that the contractual employees are not being replaced by another set of contractual employees, and thus, the action of the respondents does not call for any interference.

¶59

After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case alongwith the precedent laws cited at the Bar, this Court is of the opinion that the respondents have consciously passed the order dated 09.05.2017 whereby 214 posts were abolished and 34 posts were kept alive by creating a dying cadre. However, the respondents, without giving any proper hearing and without showing any reason for passing any other

¶60

[CW-8865/2017]

¶61

(7 of 7)

¶62

order, have gone ahead, and arbitrarily passed the discriminatory order on 18.07.2017, whereby the dying cadre of 34 posts has been reduced to 18 posts, which has jeopardized the petitioners consideration for continuance even without their knowing why such illegal order has been passed. The cryptic order passed by the respondents reducing the dying cadre and amending their own order dated 09.05.2017 is apparently bad in the eye of law, as, if a thoughtful consideration has been made to create the dying cadre, then abrogation of such dying cadre, without any reason, cannot withstand the scrutiny of law.

¶63

In light of the aforesaid observations, the present writ petitions are disposed of and while quashing and setting the impugned order dated 18.07.2017, the respondents are directed to maintain the order dated 09.05.2017. However, as far as the consideration of the petitioners while keeping in mind the precedent law of Dr. Premlata Purohit (supra) , this Court leaves it open for the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners while keeping into consideration the order passed by this Hon’ble Court in Dr. Premlata Purohit (supra) , and decide the claim of the petitioners appropriately, within a period of 60 days from today by passing an order, strictly in accordance with law.

¶64

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

¶65

/zeeshan/

Girdhar Singh v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girdhar Singh v. State 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

Vimla Vs State of Rajasthan

Manju Vs the State of Rajasthan

Phoolchand Vs Smt. Babita and Ors.

Jawana Ram Vs Rajendra Kumar and Ors.

Jhakh Gram Sewa Sah. Samiti Ltd. and Anr. Vs State of Raj. and Ors.

Smt. Ujala Prajapat Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.