RAJENDRA PATHAK Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions are being decided by this common order. The facts are being taken from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 927/86.

(2.) IT is alleged in the writ petition that the Registrar, Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal had invited applications for filling up the posts of Stenographers in the pay -scale of Rs. 625 -1120. The petitioners who were registered by the Employment Exchange were ultimately selected and appointed initially for a period of one month till the availability of the candidates by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. Copy of the order of appointment is attached as Annex. 1 with the writ petition. However, the appointment was extended vide letters dated 5.1.85 and 23.5.85 (Annex. 2 and 3). The petitioner was informed vide Annex. 4 dated 23.4.86 to supply the information with regard to their qualification acquired by them. The petitioners had invited the attention of the respondents, in their representation, copy of which is attached as Annex. 5, the effect that the amendment has been incorporated in Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 vide notification dated 23.1.1985 where by a proviso 7 -A was added to Rule. 7(1) of the said Rules of 1957 and had prayed that because of the reasons that they were appointed prior to 31.12.1984, the petitioners should also be meted out with same treatment and a special test be held for appointing them on regular basis after passing the said 'test. The request of the petitioners was repeated again by the reminders with a prayer that they should be allowed to continue in service. The petitioner was served with order dated 3.5.86 where by two other persons were appointed by way of selection made by RPSC. It was mentioned in impugned order Annex. 7 dt. 3.5.86 that the services of the petitioners would stand because of joining of the incumbents duly selected by the RPSC. The petitioners have, challenged the action of the respondents being violative and discriminatory by giving examples of certain other similarly situated appointee i.e. Om Prakash Choudhary, an employee of Technical Education Department, who was similarly removed and on his filing an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal, on the aforesaid amendment in rules, mentioned above, it was held that said Sh. Om Prakash Choudhary was entitled to another chance of passing the test as per amended rules. It is submitted by the petitioners that despite such a benefit given by the Appellate Tribunal, respondents had not held any test so far as the petitioners are concerned.

(3.) IT is admitted at the bar that the petitioners are still continuing in service since Nov. 1984. Even though no reply has been filed by the respondents, but in reply filed in the stay application, it has not been alleged that the conduct or the work of the petitioners was not satisfactory.