STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. SARKARI SAHAYATA PRAPT SHIKSHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.5.93 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge directed the respondent -appellant State of Rajasthan to modify the Grant -in -aid Rules, 1963 and extend the benefit of the order dated 9.2.93 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5447 of 1992 Prakash Chaturvedi v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.) to the teachers and the employees represented by the petitioner Sahkari Sahayata Prapt Shikshan Sansthan Shikshak and Karamchari Sangh, Rajasthan, Jodhpur (for short, 'the petitioner Sangh/association').

(2.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that (i) when the judgment was delivered by the learned Single Judge on 27.5.93, State Government had already enacted the Rajasthan Non -government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 which came Into force with effect from 1.1.1993 and in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 43 of the Act, 1989, the Rules were, also, framed which were made applicable on 18.2.1993. Though the Act and the Rules were applicable to the employees of the Government -aided Schools when the matter was decided by the learned Single Judge but still the learned Single Judge pronounced the judgment on the basis of the judgment rendered in Prakash Chaturvedi's case completely ignoring the provisions of the Act and the Rules which govern the service conditions of the members of the petitioner Sangh: (ii) when the Act has been enacted and enforced, the Rules were framed and the Supreme Court had already decided the appeals filed by the State against the two Division Bench decisions, such direction could not have been given while deciding the writ petition on 27.5.93 over -looking the judgment, the Act and the Rules: and (iii) the Courts are not expected to give direction to the Legislature or the Government to frame particular Rules or the law.

(3.) WE have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Before considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we would like to consider the chronology of events which gave rise to the present litigation.