NITESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have filed this writ petition praying for declaring Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 (for short, 'the Rules of 2008'), ultra vires being contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India to the extent it does not grant fixation to them as granted to similarly situated candidates recruited as Teacher Grade-III in the same recruitment process. Further prayer is made for a direction to respondents to give same benefit to the petitioners as was given to the petitioners in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1949/2011 titled Anita Sharma and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others, decided vide order dtd. 20/3/2015.

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the case of the present petitioners is squarely covered by the judgment of this court dtd. 12/3/2019 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4253/2019 - Ramesh Chand Saini and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others and therefore it may be decided in the light thereof. Learned counsel submits that he also does not press the challenge to Rule 14 of the Rules of 2008, however, prays that the State Government be directed to consider their case for grant of one time relaxation.

(3.) It is contended that selection of the petitioners as Upper Primary Teacher was made with the Primary Teachers. Candidates of both the categories appeared in written examination pursuant to common selection process. Common merit list was prepared, but the appointments were given on the basis of qualification/eligibility of the candidates. Appointments of the Primary Teachers were made on 24/9/2007 but the State Government delayed appointments of the petitioners as Upper Primary Teachers and eventually their appointment orders were issued on 1/1/2008. In between, the State Government vide notification dtd. 12/9/2008 promulgated the Rules of 2008. According to Rule 14 of the Rules of 2008, batch of the candidates appointed on the post of Primary Teachers received increment on 1/7/2010 since they completed one year probation period after their appointment before the applicability of the aforesaid notification, but in the case of present petitioners, since their appointments were delayed, they could not complete their probation and their increments would be delayed by one year and would be payable on 1/7/2011. 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.