BABULAL DAMOR S/O Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners inter alia with the prayer that Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 2008 (for short 'the Rules of 2008') be declared ultra vires and unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the respondents be directed to grant benefit of relaxation, as enumerated under Rule 3 of the Rules of 2008 to the petitioners and they be granted annual grade increment from the date, on which similarly situated persons have been granted, i.e., from 01.07.2010. During the course of arguments, Mr. Manvendra Singh Choudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that he does not press the challenge to Rule 14 of the Rules of 2008 on peculiar facts of this case, provided the State Government is directed to consider petitioners' case for grant of one time relaxation to them.

(2.) Selection of the petitioners who possess qualification of B.ED. as Teacher Grade-III was made with other candidates possessing qualification of BSTC. Candidates of both the categories appeared in the common written examination and participated in process of selection. Common merit list was prepared, but the appointments were given on the basis of qualification/eligibility of the candidates. Appointments of the candidates possessing qualification of BSTC were made on 10.09.2007, but the State Government delayed appointments of the petitioners and eventually their appointment orders were issued on 04.03.2008. In between, State Government vide notification dated 12.09.2008 promulgated Rajasthan Civil Services(Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 2008. According to Rule 14 of the Rules of 2008, batch of the candidates appointed on the post of Teacher Grade-III received one extra increment since they completed one year probation period after their appointment before the applicability of the aforesaid notification, but in the case of petitioners, since their appointment was delayed, they could not complete their probation and their increment would be delayed by one year.

(3.) Learned counsel has invited attention of the Court towards Rule 3 of the Rules of 2008, where the Governor retains the power to relax the rule in the case of undue hardship in any particular case. Prima facie, we are satisfied that it is a case of hardship, but since the State Government has not examined this matter, we refrain from expressing any further opinion, except requiring the State Government to have the case of the petitioners examined for grant of one time relaxation, so as to consider their case and bring them at par with the Teachers appointed in the same process of selection held in pursuance of same advertisement by granting them one increment, may be notionally, considering that they were actually in service on that date and even prior thereto. We, therefore, direct the State Government to undertake necessary exercise and pass appropriate order with regard thereto within a period of four months from the date of production of copy of this order. It goes without saying that in case grievances of the petitioners are not remedied, the petitioners would be at liberty to file fresh writ petition with the same prayer as made in the present writ petition and also incorporating challenge to the order that may be passed by the State Government.