YOGESH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition comes in the following circumstances. :

(2.) THE petitioner was, in the first instance, appointed on the post of Junior Instructor at the fixed pay of Rs. 1200/- per month vide order Ex. 1 dated 15. 6. 1989 at Mini Industrial Training Institute at village Gogunda, District, Udaipur. Before the expiry of 3 months from 15. 6. 1989, another appointment order was issued in favour of the petitioner for a period of 3 months, as Junior Instructor (House Wiring) at Mini Industrial Training Institute, Centre Dhariyawad in district Udaipur by the very same Appointing Authority vide order Ex. 2 dated 22. 8. 89. Vide order Ex. 3 dated 18. 11. 1989, the period of appointment under Ex. 2 dated 22. 8. 1989 was extended upto 21. 2. 1990. THEreafter, while the order was under operation and petitioner was allowed to continue by order dated 23. 1. 1990 (Ex. 4), the order Ex. 3 was cancelled. Yet by the very same authority, vide order dated 30. 1. 1990 (Ex. 5), the petitioner was purported to be appointed afresh for a period of 3 months on the very same post. THE purported new appointment vide Ex. 5 was extended successively for periods of 3 months vide order dated 5. 4. 1990 (Ex. 6) and vide order dated 12. 6. 1990 (Ex. 7 ). In this manner, the petitioner continuously worked as Junior Instructor, appointed by the very same authority, namely, the Deputy Director (Technical Training) Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, from 15. 6. 1989 to 6. 10. 1990 with purported break of service from 23. 1. 1990 to 31. 1. 1990. Meanwhile, an office-order was issued by the Director (Technical Training), on 30. 06. 1990 by which the Deputy Director (Technical Training), Udaipur was authorised to appoint Instructors at Mini I. T. I. , Centres in the tribal area for a period of six months. This order is produced as Ex. 8. In the instructions appended to the order, the following clause was inserted : ***********

(3.) THE impugned clause of the order dated 30. 06. 1990, as quoted hereinabove, is unequivocal in its terms that there shall be a gap of one month between two sessions of training after six months and a person who has been earlier appointed Instructor will not be re-appointed. Thus, while it envisages that the post may continue and persons may be required to be appointed on the same post for the same course, yet a person who has already been appointed earlier will not be re-considered for appointment in the successive sessions. This clearly excludes the consideration of those persons for the purpose of granting them appointment on the post which is continuing and which is required to be filled, notwithstanding the fact that the applicant may be otherwise fully eligible and suitable and may have been more meritorious than the fresh recruits, simply on the ground that he had earlier been offered a short-term employment. No nexus, much less a reasonable nexus to the object sought to be achieved by such exclusion has been pointed out. It defies all reasons why an earlier temporary appointment for short-period, renders a person ineligible for consideration for appointment for the new session. This is clearly violative of the guarantees provided under Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; wherein the State is enjoined with an obligation to offer equal opportunities of employment to all.