VIMLESH CHOUHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THESE writ petitions are decided by this common judgment as there are common questions of facts and laws are involved in these petitions.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for Rajasthan Shikshak Sangh, Mr. M. R. Singhvi, Ms. Kusam Rao for the State, Shri R. S. Saluja for other respondents raised preliminary objections with respect to the maintainability of the writ petitions filed by all the petitioners on the ground of availability of effective alternative statutory remedy to petitioners under the provisions of Rajasthan Civil Services (Service matters appellate Tribunal) Act, 1976. According to the learned counsel's for the respondents, the petitioners have challenged the orders of their transfers. Admittedly the petitioners are the Government servants and could have preferred the appeals against the above orders before the Rajasthan Civil Services Tribunal but instead of availing the statutory remedy available to the petitioners, the petitioners straightway preferred the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, without assigning any reason for not filing appeals against the above orders and there exists no ground for not filing the appeals by the petitioners against the above orders, if the petitioners are aggrieved against the above orders of transfers. Mr. M. R. Singhvi relies upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Secretary, Minor Irrigation and Engineering Services vs. Sahngoo Ram Arya and Anr. (2), when, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even where the Tribunal has no authority to grant the interim orders, even then it cannot be ground to bypass the State Tribunals. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the Primary Teacher is the post available in the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act 1994 as well as shown in the rules framed their under which are the rules of 1996. The petitioners in the present writ petitions are not the employees appointed under the above act of 1994 or rules of 1996 but they are the employees of the State and are appointed by following procedure which is provided under the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971. Their appointing authority is the District Education Officer and who is competent to pass the order of transfer of the petitioners from one School to another school. The teachers appointed under the Panchayati Raj act and rules can become the employees of the State services only by their appointment as teacher under rules of 1971 as there is quota provided for giving appointment to the Panchayati Raj Primary Teacher on the post of Teacher under entry 9 (A) of Sec. F of Schedule appended to the Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the Respondents, there exists two sets of the teachers engaged in primary education. one is appointee under the provisions of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and another is appointee under the Rules of 1971. Appointing authority of both the teachers are different and therefore, the Rule 289 of the rules of 1996 applies to the teachers appointed under the provisions of the Act of 1994 and the rules of 1996 and these Rules have no application over the petitioners teachers. It is also submitted that the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners delivered in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4363/01 also goes against the petitioners, as the petitioners are relying upon the various circulars issued by the Panchayati Raj Department or the orders passed by the State Government which cannot override the statutory provisions of the rules of 1971.