BENCH AT JAIPUR vs The State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary,

Judgment

1. The State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, School Education, Jaipur Rajasthan.

2. The Director, Directorate Sakshartha Evem Satat Shiksha, Shiksha Sankul, J.L.N. Marg, Rajasthan Jaipur.

3. The Secretary, Rajasthan District Literacy Committee, District Collector, Dausa.

4. The Deputy Secretary, Director Local Bodies, Near 22 Godam Pulia, Jaipur.

5. The Chief Coordinator, District Literacy Committee, Lalsot Road, Dausa. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. M.F. Baig, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 28/04/2025

1. Feeling aggrieved by the decision dated 23.11.2015 by the Screening Committee constituted for the purpose of examining the case of petitioner for regularization of his services and whereby, the benefit of regularization has been declined to the petitioner, he has approached this Court by way of filing the instant writ petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. Petitioner has come out with the case that he was engaged as Class-IV employee in respondent-Department in District Literacy Committee, Lalsot, Dausa on 04.04.1996. However, in violation of provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes [2025:RJ-JP:17799] (2 of 6) [CW-4439/2016] Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as, "Act of 1947"), his services were illegally terminated by the respondents w.e.f. 31.07.2000.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner raised industrial disputes under the provisions of Act of 1947, which was ultimately referred to learned Labour Court No.2, Jaipur, for the purposes of adjudication and ultimately award dated 21.10.2011 was passed by the Labour Court No.2, Jaipur, whereby the termination of services of the petitioner w.e.f. 31.07.2000 was held illegal and further directions for reinstatement as well as maintaining continuing in services were also given vide award dated 21.10.2011.

4. The award was although assailed by the respondents before this Court under article 227 of the Constitution of India, yet the challenge was unsuccessful and even thereafter, Division Bench was also approached by way of filing special appeal, that was also rejected.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated in services vide order dated 03.07.2013 and since then, he has been continuing in the services of the respondent-Department.

6. Mr. M.F. Baig, learned counsel for the petitioner indicated that the petitioner had submitted an application for seeking regularization of his services, which was in pursuance of the Scheme framed by State Government in compliance of judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 and, accordingly, notification dated 27.02.2009 was issued by the Department of Personnel, whereby, necessary amendments were carried out in Rajasthan Class-IV Service (Recruitment and other Service Conditions) Rules, 1999. [2025:RJ-JP:17799] (3 of 6) [CW-4439/2016]

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that his candidature for the purpose of regularization was considered by the Standing Committee, duly constituted pursuant to aforesaid notification dated 27.02.2009, however, the Committee observed that at the time of initial irregular engagement of petitioner no post of Class-IV employee was sanctioned in District Literacy Committee, Lalsot, Dausa and even in the award passed by the Labour Court against earlier termination of the petitioner, no direction for regularization has been given. Hence, claim of the petitioner for seeking regularization was thereby rejected.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court over one communication dated 11.12.2015 made by Joint Director of Literacy and Continuing Education, Rajasthan, wherein as many as 11 vacancies of Class-IV employee have been shown in respondent-Department. He also submits that while considering the case for regularization, the respondents are required to take into consideration the vacancies lying in the entire Department and not in a particular Committee.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since, 11 posts were lying vacant, therefore, the Screening Committee has erroneously ignored the same and on account of availability of the vacancies, there was no legal embargo in passing an order of regularization.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that as regards extent of the directions of the Labour Court in the aforesaid award is concerned, petitioner is not seeking regularization in compliance of such award and subsequent orders [2025:RJ-JP:17799] (4 of 6) [CW-4439/2016] passed by this Court in litigation arising from such award; and is rather claiming his rights under the notification dated 27.02.2009.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is fulfilling all the conditions mentioned in notification dated 27.02.2009 and had completed 10 years of services as on

10.04.2006, therefore, he was entitled for regularization under the Scheme framed by the State Government.

12. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer made in the writ petition by way of filing reply on the grounds that the Screening Committee has examined the case of the petitioner pursuant to aforesaid notification dated 27.02.2009 and found that at the relevant time when the petitioner was initially engaged in the year 1996, post was not lying vacant and even the Labour Court has never directed for regularization of the petitioner. Hence, the respondents have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner with regard to regularization.

13. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

14. The reasons shown by the respondents in decision dated

23.11.2015 for not regularizing the petitioner are neither reasonable nor justified. Amendment in service Rules vide notification dated 27.02.2009 was made by the respondent- Department for granting relief to such persons, who were earlier irregularly appointed and continued for long in service, yet pursuant to directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as Scheme framed by the State Government can be considered for regularization on completion of 10 years of services as on

10.04.2006. [2025:RJ-JP:17799] (5 of 6) [CW-4439/2016]

15. Under these circumstances, vacancy of the post on which regularization is being sought, is to be considered on the date on which Screening Committee considers the case for regularization and not the date on which initial irregular engagement was made. For the reasons that there being no clear cut vacancy on the date of initial engagement, can also be one of the ground making the initial engagement as irregular. Hence, the intend of respondent- Government while making amendment in the service Rules vide notification dated 27.02.2009 was to regularize the eligible persons initially appointed on irregular basis against the posts, which are lying vacant on the date of consideration.

16. As regards the observations by the Screening Committee that there were no directions in the award passed by the Labour Court with regard to regularization of the petitioner, sufficient explanation has been given by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was not seeking regularization pursuant to Labour Court award and was rather seeking protection under the aforesaid notification dated 27.02.2009.

17. In view of aforesaid discussions, it is clear that the consideration made by the Screening Committee vide decision dated 23.11.2015 is not a fair consideration hence, such decision dated 23.11.2015 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is held entitled for regularization w.e.f. 10.04.2006 pursuant to aforesaid notification dated 27.02.2009 on the existing vacancy of Class-IV employee.

18. Petitioner is also entitled for all consequential benefits in consequences of his regularization w.e.f. 10.04.2006. The necessary orders in this regard be passed within a period of two [2025:RJ-JP:17799] (6 of 6) [CW-4439/2016] months and arrears of difference of pay, if any, be also released within the aforesaid period.

19. In view of above discussions, the writ petition stands allowed accordingly.

20. Stay application as well as all pending applications shall stand disposed of. DAKSH/230 (ANAND SHARMA),J