SHARMILA PANDYA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was given appointment as untrained teacher on 21. 12. 1988. Pursuant to appointment aforesaid, the petitioner worked upto 13. 5. 1989 when her services were terminated. THE petitioner claims that presumably as per the decision of this Hon'ble Court and as per the directions of the Government of Rajasthan, the petitioner was sent for training by correspondence for the purpose of undergoing School Teaching Course specially meant for teachers appointed on contract basis. THE petitioner underwent the course during the Sessions 1993-94 and 1994-95 and completed the training in the year 1995.

(2.) IT is claimed by the petitioner that Administration Secretary, Panchayati Raj wrote to all the Chief Executive Officers of Zila Parishads, including Dungarpur by communication dated 9. 12. 1999 in relation to the appointment to contract/vocational education passed candidates. The communication has been produced herewith as Annex. 1. By this communication it was communicated that under advertisement No. 98 on the sanctioned posts of teachers appointments to only those candidate have to be given who are in merit and have undertaken this course. This was expressed in terms of those teachers who had passed the vocational course and had remained on contract basis. IT was stated that if they have acquired the minimum requisite qualifications they are to be appointed. A copy of the list of contract/vocational teachers was attached directing that they are the teachers to be appointed in the districts referred to in the letter. In all 252 posts were required for such candidates. The bifurcation was 221 removed and 31 in another category. Pursuant to the direction contained in Annex. 1, an order Annex. 2 was passed whereby the petitioner was allotted Dungarpur Panchayat Samiti and was ordered to be appointed. Order Annex. 3 came to be passed by the respondent Zila Parishad and the petitioner was appointed on 2 years probation. After passing of the order of appointment of the petitioner Annex. 3 a communication dated 8. 2. 2000 produced alongwith the writ petition as Annex. 4 was issued which in its paragraph 4 stated that only those candidates will be regularized who stated that only those candidates will be regularized who had completed 240 days service. The communication has been produced as Annex. 4. The petitioner pleaded in the writ petition that the petitioner's services are expected to be terminated thereafter by the respondents. Against the action, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition.

(3.) AFTER remand the petitioner amended her writ petitions and in the amended writ petition produced Annex. 4a by virtue of which an order was passed for terminating the services of the petitioner. Annex. 4b and 4c were the executive instructions to the respondents. Annex. 4d is an annexure which says that the State Government has considered the decision dated 10. 5. 2000 rendered in Ashok Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan and Others (2), and the State Government has also perused the various instructions issued in this regard and it has been stated in this communication that this clarifications issued that those candidates, who have passed this course and find mention in the select list of 1998, they can be appointed in accordance with seniority. This is also stated in this notification that the condition of 240 days is removed.