BANSILAL CHOHISA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a photostat copy of the order dated. 3.9.91 issued by the Director, Primary and Secondary Education, Bikaner, by which the petitioner has been appointed as Senior Teacher (School Lecturer) in Hindi.He has been placed on probation from the date of joining of duty.

(2.) In view of the order dated 3.9.91 the main grievance of the petitioner, that he is not being given appointment on the ground that he is having the qualification of Shiksha Shastri, stands remedied. Shri Sharma vehementally submitted that on account of the negligence on the part of the departmental authorities the petitioner was deprived of appointment from a date persons less meritorious than him have been given appointment. He argued that despite several decisions of this Court in which Shiksha Shastri was declared as equivalent to that of B.Ed., the departmental authorities have acted with callous negligence in denying appointment to the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner should be compensated by award of cost and that a direction be given for payment of salary for the period he was prevented from working qua persons less meritorious than hint.

(3.) There appears to be some substance in the contention of Shri Sharma. It has become a practise of the departmental authorities to over-look decisions given by this Court. This Court had declared as early as in the year 1986 that Shiksha Shastri qualification is equivalent to B.Ed. Even in the years 1990 and 1991, a number of Writ Petitions were decided by this Court at Jodhpur as well as at Jaipur Bench directing that appointment of a candidate selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission cannot be withheld on the ground that he possesses qualification of Shiksha Shastri and not that of B.Ed. Even after the decisions of this Court, the departmental authorities continue to deny appointments to the selected candidates. When questions of law are decided by this Court and such questions are applicable not only to a particular petitioner but large number of employees, the departmental authorities are bound to give effect to the decision of the Court not in the matter of the petitioner,but on all similar cases. It is of course open to them to challenge the order passed by a Single Bench before a Division Bench and one passed by a Division Bench before the Supreme Court but if the order passed by a Single Bench or Division Bench attains finality on account of the same has not been challenged before a Division Bench or Supreme Court, the departmental authorities are left with no option but to give effect to the decision and to extend the benefit to all similarly situated persons. That, is not only a moral duty but a constitutional obligation imposed on the public authorities. This is also necessary to avoid unnecessary litigation in the Courts of law.