Disposed

Virander Singh Mann Son of Late Shri Umrao Singh Mann v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 Sept 2024CW/6338/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed respondents to decide within four months whether Physical Training Instructors, who are legally deemed as teachers per SC precedent, should be included in promotion schemes to become VCs/Principals, noting the issue was pending for over a decade.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to decide the petitioners' claim regarding equal treatment with teachers for promotion within four months.

Virander Singh Mann Son of Late Shri Umrao… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:37145-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6338/2021

¶4

Virander Singh Mann Son Of Late Shri Umrao Singh Mann, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of House No. 469/3, Village And Post Khera Khurd, Opposite M.c.d. Primary School, Village And Post Khera Khurd, Delhi 110082

¶5

Smt. Suman Vashishtha Wife Of Shri Vinod Kumar Vashishtha D/o Shri Radhey Shyam Sharma, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of 115, Rathor Nagar, Queens Road, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur-302021.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶9

Commissioner, College Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Shiksha Sankul, J.l.n.marg, Jaipur.

¶10

Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶11

University Grant Commission, Through Its Director, Bahadur Shah Jaffar Marg, New Delhi-110002.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Kumar Soni with Ms. Poonam For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG assisted by Mr. Yash Joshi

¶14

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶15

Order

¶16

04/09/2024

¶17

Mr. Vigyan Shah, learned Additional Advocate General is present in the Court on advance copy.

¶18

[2024:RJ-JP:37145-DB]

¶19

[CW-6338/2021]

¶20

(2 of 3)

¶21

Heard.

¶22

The existing provisions, as contained in Rule 26 and Schedule appended to the Rajasthan Education (Collegiate Branch) Service Rules, 1986, insofar as it relates to non-inclusion of the post of Physical Training Instructors for promotion to the post of Vice Principal/Principal, is challenged mainly on the ground that the existing scheme of promotion does not provide any promotional avenues to the Physical Training Instructors presumably for the reason that they are not being treated as teachers, which is against the dictum of the Supreme Court in the Case of P.S. Ramamohana Rao Vs A.P. Agricultural University & Anr., AIR 1997 SC 3433, wherein it has been held that the Physical Training Instructors are also to be treated as teachers for all purposes.

¶23

We find that this issue has remained pending with the State Government for quite sometime and various note-sheets which have been placed on record, obtained under the RTI, disclose that recommendations have been made at different levels but the matter is still pending consideration before the State Government. 5. It is quite unfortunate that way back on 30.09.2013 this Court had expected the respondents to consider and decide the petitioners’ claim for consideration of their treatment at par with teachers but nothing has happened so far. 6. The State has not taken any stand in the matter as yet and the matter is stated to be pending for the last more than 10 years. The dictum of the Supreme Court in the case of P.S. Ramamohana Rao Vs A.P. Agricultural University (supra), does not leave any manner of doubt that the Physical Training

¶24

[2024:RJ-JP:37145-DB]

¶25

[CW-6338/2021]

¶26

(3 of 3)

¶27

Instructors/Physical Teachers are also to be treated as Teachers. Except providing them scale promotions, promotional avenues have not been provided to them and they retire from the post on which they are appointed. As an essential attribute of public employment, it is always expected that one or the other kind of promotional avenues are provided. How and in what manner it is to be provided is in the domain of the State.

¶28

At this stage, we are of the view that a direction should be issued to the respondents to take a decision on the issue one way or the other.

¶29

Considering that earlier order of this Court passed on 30.09.2013 was not paid any heed to as this Court had only expressed hope without issuing any direction, we are inclined to issue emphatic direction to the respondents to take a decision in the matter with regard to grievance of the petitioners within a period of four months.

¶30

It goes without saying that in case the grievance of the petitioners is not redressed, it will be open for the petitioners to again approach this Court.

¶31

With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶32

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶33

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ

¶34

Kamlesh Kumar-RAHUL/34

Virander Singh Mann Son of Late Shri Umrao Singh Mann v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virander Singh Mann Son of Late Shri Umrao Singh Mann 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Spml Infra Limited Vs State of Rajasthan

Spml Infra Limited Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan Public Service Commission Vs Mukesh Kumar Balai S/O Roop Narayan Balai

Reshama W/O Mohmmad Ali @ Bablu Vs the State of Rajasthan

Gayatri Vidyapeeth Vs State of Rajasthan

State of Rajasthan Vs Shri J.C. Luthra S/O Shri H.R. Luthra