Disposed

Sukh Lal Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Jan 2024CW/2344/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, Sankrit teachers from the ST category, challenged non-reservation in promotion. The Court found no dispute on post availability but noted lack of reasons for petitioner ineligibility. It directed individual case studies with reasons.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to examine each petitioner's case individually and pass reasoned orders on eligibility within 3 months.

Sukh Lal Meena Vs State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:47]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2344/2022

¶4

Sukh Lal Meena S/o Jagdish Meena, Aged About 33 Years, Village Bhandawas, Post Gulgoan, District Ajmer.

¶5

Nathoo Lal Meena S/o Prahlad Meena, Aged About 31 Years, Vpo Nirjharna Dhani, Chokhandya, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa.

¶6

Khyali Ram Meena S/o Jagga Ram Meena, Aged About 33 Years, Vpo Agar, Tehsil Thanagazi, District Alwar.

¶7

Harkesh Meena S/o Ram Kishan Meena, Aged About 30 Years, Village Malawash, Ward No.04, Malawas, District Dausa.

¶8

Pinku Ram Meena S/o Hemraj Meena, Aged About 33 Years, Village Piperwala, Po Khajuri, Tehsil Nainwan, District Bundi.

¶9

----Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶12

The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.

¶13

The Joint Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner Division, Bikaner.

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Sushil Solanki
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Hemant Choudhary

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

¶17

Order

¶18

02/01/2024

¶19

Petitioners herein are serving as Sankrit Teachers in various schools in State of Rajasthan and belong to the S.T. category. Their grievance is that as per the constitutional mandate, the State Government is not providing the requisite reservation to the

[2024:RJ-JD:47]

[CW-2344/2022]

(2 of 4)

S.T. category for considering them for further promotion on the post of Senior Teacher (Sanskrit). They submit that despite having sought the requisite information qua the number of post reserved in the S.T. category on the promotional post of Senior Teacher (Sanskrit), same has not been provided to them under the RTI. On the contrary, vide a vague communication dated 22.07.2020, petitioners were informed that no such information is maintained in the department. Hence the writ petition.

¶24

Further grievance of the petitioners is that under the garb of not maintaining the requisite data in the department, certain ineligible persons who are junior to the petitioners, belonging to the categories other than scheduled tribes, have been included in the list of eligible candidates for considering them on the promotional post of Senior Teacher (Sanskrit).

¶25

In response to the writ petition, counter affidavit dated 22.09.2023 deposed by District Education Officer (Legal Secondary Education), District Jodhpur has been filed wherein it is deposed as under:-

¶26

“4. That the cadre strength of the post of Senior Teacher (Sanskrit) during the vacancy year 202021 were 544, against which, 467 candidates were already working on the post of Senior Teacher Sanskrit. As such, there were 77 clear vacancies available for promotion (544-467) to the post of Senior Teacher (Sanskrit) during the vacancy year 2020-21. That apart, probable vacancies on account of retirement etc. were also counted to the tune of 13 vacancies which brought the total vacancies for promotion to the post of Senior Teacher as 90 i.e. 77+13.

¶27

That for the year 2020-21, DPC for promotion to the post of Senior Teacher was to be made for 90 vacant posts, out of which, 34 posts were reserved for Schedule Tribe category employees.

¶28

That as per provisions of the circular dated 04.06.2008, answering respondents were to prepare list of seven times of 90 posts vacancies

(3 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:47]

[CW-2344/2022]

i.e. list of 630 employees as per their seniority. However, inadvertently, list of 610 employees was prepared and names of 20 candidates remained to be mentioned in the eligibility list. Be that as it may, the last candidate as per seniority included in the eligibility list was having seniority No.243/2010-15-Mohan Lal. In this way, even if list of 630 candidates was prepared, then also, the last candidate would be bearing seniority number 601/2010-15-Vinod Kumar.

¶33

That in the DPC for the year 2020-21, only 3 eligible candidates from ST category were available who were selected for promotion. Remaining posts were carry-forward. As per seniority position of the petitioners, it is evident from the tabular statement regarding their seniority that none of the petitioner was eligible for consideration and inclusion of his name in the eligibility list prepared for seven times of available vacancies.”

¶34

A perusal of the above clearly reflects that the grievance, to the extent of disclosing the number of posts reserved in the S.T. category has been addressed in the aforesaid affidavit. To that extent, no further proceedings are warranted before this Court.

¶35

The affidavit also reflects that as regards the availability of the promotional post in the S.T. category is concerned, there is no dispute, it is only for the lack of eligible candidates that the posts were not filled up and have been carried forward.

¶36

As regards the petitioners not being considered for the promotional post, it is stated in Para 8, ibid, that for the year 2021, the Departmental Promotional Committee found only 3 eligible candidates from the S.T. category and they were accordingly selected and promoted. Remaining 31 posts out of the 34 have been carried forward to be filled in future as and when the eligible candidates are available.

¶37

There is no clear stand taken by the respondents qua the petitioners herein as to whether their candidatures were considered for the promotional post or not and whether having

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:47]

[CW-2344/2022]

considered them they were found ineligible and as to what are the reasons of the ineligibility, therefore, in the absence thereof, the claim of the petitioners to be considered for promotional post cannot be gone into by this Court.

¶42

In the premise, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority of the respondents to take up individual case of every petitioner herein and pass appropriate orders qua the eligibility and give reasons thereof as to whether they are eligible or not.

¶43

Needless to say, in case they are found eligible, they will be considered for promotional post in the S.T. category in accordance with law as per the applicable rules.

¶44

Needful be done within a period of 3 months.

¶45

Disposed of accordingly.

¶46

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶47

(ARUN MONGA),J

¶48

4-DhananjayS/-

Sukh Lal Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukh Lal Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rameshwar Lal Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Subhash Vishnoi Vs the Union of India

Mandeep Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan Raj. Ayurved University, Jodhpur

Jitendra Kumar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra Kumar Bhatt Vs State of Rajasthan