SUNIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the instant appeal, a challenge is made to the order impugned dtd. 29/8/2023, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the petition preferred by the appellant herein, was dismissed.

(2.) The concise and ineluctable factual matrix of the instant appeal dictates as under:-

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the order impugned has been passed in contravention to the settled position of law, without taking into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. In support of the said claim, learned counsel submitted that the impugned condition of requiring minimum five years of service for undertaking the PostGraduate education is ex-facie arbitrary and discriminatory, being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as similarly situated persons, who are working in the State Government, are permitted to undertake Post-Graduate education, after the completion of three years of service only. Furthermore, it was averred that the respondents cannot adopt dual standards, where on the one hand, permission to undertake Post-Graduate education is denied by the respondents before completing five years of service on the ground non-availability of Senior Demonstrators and on the other hand, the respondents have themselves taken a decision to not only discontinue but also abolish the post of Senior Demonstrators w.e.f. 31/7/2023. Thus, whilst alleging discrimination and seeking parity with the employees of the State Government who are permitted to undertake Post-Graduate education after the completion of three years only, the appellant prayed for the quashing of the order impugned. Lastly, it was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the reliance placed upon the judgement of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1462/2022 titled as Meena Nitharwal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., by the learned Single Judge is misconceived, being contrary to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case.