LAWS(RAJ)-1976-8-7

STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. RAM CHARAN HEDA

Decided On August 02, 1976
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Appellant
V/S
Ram Charan Heda Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal by the defendant State of Rajasthan is directed against the appellate judgment of the Additional Civil Judge, Ajmer, dated July 5, 1968.

(2.) THE relevant undisputed facts of the case are that on July 19 1960, the plaintiff -respondent was appointed by the competent authority as s lecturer in Commerce in the Teachers' Training College, Ajmer. Subsequently, the State of Rajasthan framed the Rajatsthan Educational Service Rules, 1960, which came into force on October 27, 1960. By order dated June 29, 1903 the Director, Primary and Secondary Education, reverted the plaintiff from the post of Lecturer in Commerce to the post of Senior Teacher in Commerce. The plaintiff thereupon after notice under Section 80 C.P.C. brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for declaration that the order of reversion being without jurisdiction and against the Education Service Rules, 1960, hereinafter referred as 'the Rules', is void, illegal and inoperative, and the plaintiff continues in service as Lecturer in the Teachers' Training College, Ajmer. The plaintiff also claimed a sum of Rs. 1.199A as difference of the salary paid to him during the period from July 19, 1963 to the date of the suit i.e. January 8, 1965. The main ground on which order of reversion was challenged was that the impugned order was passed in violation of Rules 7(b) and 7(c) of the Rules The defendant contested the suit on the ground, inter alia, that since the plaintiff was neither possessed of minimum qualifications required for the post of a Lecturer nor he was holding the post of a Held -Master or a Deputy Inspector at the time the Rules came into force, he was no; entitled to be considered under Rule 7(b) of the Rules for the appointment to the post of a Lecturer.

(3.) ARGUING the appeal, the Deputy Government Advocate has contended that the present case falls within the ambit of Rule 8(b) of the Rules and the courts below have committed grave error in applying Rule 7(b) of the Rules to the facts of the present case. I rind no substance in the above contention Rules 7 and 8 of the Rules read as under, - 7. Initial constitution of the Service. - The Service shall be constituted initially as follows: