MANOJ KUMAR LAVAVANSHEE Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the advertisement dtd. 25/4/2018 (Annexure-6), whereby 402 posts of Junior Instructors in different Industrial Training Institute of the State were notified for recruitment by the Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial Service Selection Board, Jaipur.

(2.) Grievance raised by the petitioners is that they have been working on the post of Instructor for last 7-11 years on contractual basis through placement agency. They have produced on record certain experience certificates. The action of the respondents in not giving any weightage to their past service in the ongoing recruitment is wholly illegal. The advertisement aforesaid therefore be quashed and respondents be restrained from making recruitment. It is also prayed that impugned clause in the advertisement dtd. 25/4/2018 providing weightage to the CITS qualification may be declared contrary to the Rules and accordingly be quashed and set aside. Prayer is also made to direct the respondent-State to suitably amend the Rajasthan Technical Training Subordinate Service Rules, 1975 by which provision relating to the benefit of experience to the candidates, who are already serving and possessing the experience of the post of Junior Instructor may be incorporated.

(3.) In the course of arguments, when the learned counsel for the petitioners was confronted with the judgement of division bench of this Court in Rajveer Singh and Ors. v. UOI and Ors., D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12145/2016 dtd. 17/1/2017, he submitted that State Government challenged the aforesaid judgement before the Supreme Court by filing the Special Leave to Petition, but the same was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dtd. 24/8/2018. However, the question of law involved in the matter was kept open for consideration in an appropriate case. Therefore, even if the respondents have issued fresh advertisement giving weightage of CITS qualification pursuant to judgement of this Court, that question can still be examined by this Court.