R S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 9215 of 2008 · Rajasthan High Court
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 26 Feb 2009
- Bench
- H R PANWAR
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. R.S.Choudhary, for the petitioner. Mr. R.L.Jangid, Addl. Advocate General for the respondents. BY THE COURT By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to consider his candidature for appointment on the post of Prabodhak and grant appointment if he is otherwise found eligible. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner has annexed Annex.7 Teaching Experience Certificate issued by the office of Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Osiyan. District Jodhpur On perusal of the certificate, it appears that it shows that the petitioner had experience of more than 5 years. It is contended by learned Additional Advocate General for the State that the petitioner does not possess the 2 five years continuous teaching experience as required under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008. However, order No.प.20 (22) प(cid:3)श(cid:5)/ 2005 प(cid:3)ट(cid:7) dated 01.01.2009 has been issued by the State whereby certain guidelines have been issued by the State Govt. for considering the period of teaching experience and in respect of the applicants who remained indoor patient and who underwent training, it has been provided that such period shall not be treated as break in service and further it has been provided that maximum break period will be of 180 days on account of certain grounds mentioned therein. The grounds mentioned therein are six in number viz. (1) applicant's own and his family member's sickness, a maximum period of 20 days in a year for which no medical certificate is required, (2) Marriage of the applicant or family members or on account of death in his family, (3) Natural calamities or riots etc., (4) On account of the institution having remained closed by the order of the Govt. (5) the period during which the applicant was required to appear in the Court and (6) Any other reasons to the satisfaction of the appointing authority. On the basis of order dated 01.01.2009, the Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan Bikaner, issued an order to all the Dy. Directors and District Education Officers (Elementary Education) dated
02.01.2009. In this view of the matter, in my view, it would be 3 appropriate to permit the petitioner to make a detailed representation in the light of the orders of State Govt. dated
1.1.2009 and 2.1.2009 respectively to the respondent No.3, District Education Officer, (Elementary), Jodhpur within 15 days from today stating all relevant facts as required by order dated
01.01.2009 and if such a representation is made, the respondent No.3 District Education Officer, (Elementary), Jodhpur, shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law and more particularly keeping in view the orders of the State Govt. dated 1.1.2009 and 2.1.2009. It shall be open for the respondent to demand the original documents and other relevant facts from the petitioner to get satisfied about his claim for break in service on the grounds mentioned in order dated 1.1.2009 relating to teaching experience, leave etc. If the petitioner is otherwise meritorious and comes in merit and eligible for appointment, he may be considered for appointment on the post of Prabodhak. With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. (H.R.PANWAR), J. 4 S.B.Civil Misc. Stay Petition No. 15813/08 In S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 9215/08 Date of Order : 26/02/2009 HON'BLE MR. H.R.PANWAR,J. Mr. R.S.Choudhary, for the petitioner. Mr. R.L.Jangid, Addl. Advocate General for the respondents. Since the writ petition itself has been disposed of, the stay petition also stands disposed of. (H.R.PANWAR), J.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Rajasthan High Court, on 26 Feb 2009. The bench was H R PANWAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.