Mobile View
Main Search Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 2 docs
Amrik Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 December, 1993
State Of Haryana And Anr vs Tilak Raj And Ors on 14 July, 2003

User Queries
Rajasthan High Court
Ramkumar Jat And Ors. vs State Of Raj. And Ors. on 10 January, 2005
Equivalent citations: RLW 2005 (3) Raj 1772
Author: A Parihar
Bench: A Parihar

JUDGMENT

Ashok Parihar, J.

1. The controversy in the present writ petition is in regard to regular selection to the post of Teacher Grade III as per amendment made in the Rajasthan Panchayat Act and the Rules thereunder through the agency of Rajasthan State Public Service Commission and for regularisation of Para Teachers appointed under a Scheme of the State Government in the name of Rajiv Gandhi Swarn Jayanti Pathshala. It has been submitted that all the points in issue have been decided by the Division Bench of this Court at the main seat in the case of Richhpal Singh v. State of Rajasthan, DB Civil Writ Petition No. 3654/2004, decided on January 4th 2005.

2. The whole controversy as has been summarised by the Division Bench in para No. 1 of the judgment, referred above, is reproduced hereasunder:-

"Thousands of teachers by way of instant bunch of writ petitions, as mentioned in Schedule appended to each petition, have challenged the Constitutional validity of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Ordinance, 2004 and Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Rules, 2004 providing for selection of Teachers Gr. III by the Public Service Commission and have prayed for restoring the autonomy to the Panchayati Raj Institutions in the matter of selection & appointment of primary school teachers. Petitioner-teachers have also prayed for restoration of the Notification dated 14.7.2003 providing to fill up the posts of Teacher Gr. III to the extent of 75% from para Teachers/Shiksha Sahyogi and 25% from the open market. It is further prayed that their services be regularised as Teacher Gr. III, who have been in continuous service for a considerable time as Para Teacher/Shiksha Sahyogi."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners have now tried to carve out certain exceptions to distinguish the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Richhpal Singh (Supra) on the ground of non consideration of certain aspects. Some counsels even stretched their submissions to the extent of claiming continuance of such petitioners on the post of Para Teacher where they are still working and have also prayed for regular pay scale on the principles of equal pay for equal work.

4. After hearing counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the entire material on record, relevant provisions of the Constitution of India, the Act and the Rules in regard to Panchayat Raj Institutions as also Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules governing the service conditions of Teacher Grade III appointed in the institutions run by the State Government.

5. The Division Bench, in the detailed judgment in the case of Richhpal Singh (Supra) has duly considered the object and relevant provisions of the Constitution of India so far as Panchayat Raj Institutions are concerned, as also the provisions of the Rules governing Primary School Teachers under the Panchayat Raj Institutions as also Education Subordinate Service Rules. The Division Bench has also taken note in detail of the scheme "Rajiv Gandhi Swarn Jayanti Pathshala" as started by the State Government at a particular time and all the contentions as raised by the petitioners have been rejected by the Division Bench dismissing all the writ petitions on all the points in issue.

6. So far as alternative plea of equal pay for equal work and continuation of petitioners as Para Teachers now raised by some of the counsels before this Court is concerned, no material has been placed on record to establish parity with the teachers appointed on regular basis under the provisions of relevant statutory rules. Since there are regular selections through the agency of Rajasthan Public Service Commission, all the petitioners have a right to apply for the post and participate in the process of selection if otherwise they are eligible as per the relevant Rules. Mere performing some subsidiary jobs of election work or pulse polio programme does not bring them within the ambit of statute so as to claim regular pay scale. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has even gone to the extent of holding that under such circumstances the courts should not direct to pay even minimum of the pay scale of the post in question what to say of regularisation. Reference can made judgment of Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Tilak Raj 2003 (6) SCC 123.

7. Some times, twilight zone of expectation is raised so high that it becomes difficult or, to say, impossible to bring them back within the framework of statutory laws. But the courts have to strike a balance between expectations of few as compared to rights of thousands similarly situated who claim the same under the statute.

8. In view of the detailed judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Richhpal Singh (Supra) on exactly the same facts and circumstances, I find no ground for any further interference of this Court in the present writ petition. The same is dismissed accordingly as having no merits.