SURESH KUMAR KHARADI 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.