Rajasthan High Court - JodhpurMadan Lal Bhat vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 6 April, 2018Bench:Chief Justice,Vinit Kumar MathurHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
           (1) D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 626 / 2018
Prahlad Rai Chotia S/o Shri Madan Lal Chotia, Aged About 46
Years, Byecaste Chotia, R/o 26 V S P Nagar, Bhilwara (Rajasthan)
                                                       ----Appellant
                               Versus
1.   The State of Rajasthan, Through the Secretary, Department of
     Education, Secretariat, Jaipur. (Raj.)
2.   Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner (Rajasthan)
3.   District Education Officer, Secondary, Bhilwara (Rajasthan)
4.   Zila Parishad, Rajsamand, Through Chief Executive Officer,
     Rajsamand (Rajasthan)
                                                   ----Respondents
                          Connected with
           (2) D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 627 / 2018
Madan Lal Bhat S/o Shri Nana Lal Bhat, Aged About 49 Years,
Byecaste Bhat, R/o V.P.O. Pander, Jahajpur, Bhilwara (Rajasthan)
                                                       ----Appellant
                               Versus
1.   The State of Rajasthan, Through the Secretary, Department of
     Education, Secretariat, Jaipur. (Raj.)
2.   Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner (Rajasthan)
3.   District Education Officer, Secondary, Bhilwara (Rajasthan)
4.   Zila Parishad, Rajsamand, Through Chief Executive Officer,
     Rajsamand (Rajasthan)
                                                   ----Respondents
           (3) D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 642 / 2018
Laxmi Lal Meena S/o Shri Ghasi Ram Meena, Aged About 40
Years, Byecaste Meena, R/o R. Naya Dariba, Post Kotri, Tehsil
Railmagra. District Rajsamand (Rajasthan).
                                                       ----Appellant
                               Versus
1.   The State of Rajasthan, Through the Secretary, Department of
     Education, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2.   The Secretary, Department of Rural Development                and
     Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
                                 (2 of 4)
                                                              [SAW-626/2018]

3.   The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner
     (Rajasthan).
4.   The Deputy Director, Elementary Education, Udaipur, District
     Udaipur (Rajasthan).
5.   The Chief Executive       Officer,    Zila   Parishad,   Rajsamand
     (Rajasthan).
6.   The District Education Officer, (Elementary              Education),
     Education Department, Rajsamand, (Rajasthan).
7.   The Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti,
     Rail Magra, Distt. Rajsamand (Rajasthan).
                                                        ----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Appellant(s)    :   Mr. Lokesh Mathur on behalf of
                        Mr. M.S. Godara
_____________________________________________________
                   HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUROrder
06/04/20181.    Large number of writ petitions were disposed of by a singular

order dated 15.01.2018 because same question of law arose for

consideration.2.    Five D.B. Special Appeals (Writ) against the impugned order

were dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 30.01.2018.

Lead matter beingD.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.233/2018 Ahmad

Ali vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Theorder reads as under:"1.   The appellants are aggrieved by an order dated
     15.01.2018 dismissing the writ petitions filed by them.2.    Appellants were all appointed as Teacher Gr.III,
     now redesignated as Teacher Gr.III (Level-I or Level-II).
     As per the provisions of theRajasthan Panchayati Raj
     Act, 1994(herein after referred as 'the Act of 1994')
     Primary and Upper Primary Education being under the
     respective Zila Parishads their service was governed by
     the Act of 1994 and the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules,
     1996 (herein after referred as 'the Rules of 1996').(3 of 4)
                                                   [SAW-626/2018]3.     A decision was taken to merge some Primary or
Upper Primary schools with the nearby Secondary/Senior
Secondary schools established by the State of Rajasthan
under the cadre controlling Ministry being the Ministry of
Education. The appellants were teachers in Primary and
Upper Primary schools which was merged with
Secondary/Senior Secondary schools and they questioned
their service being transferred from the Panchayati Raj
Department to direct employment under the State of
Rajasthan in its Education Department.4.     The issue before the learned Single Judge was
debated with reference toSection 89 (9)of the Act of
1994 and Rule 6 (D) of the Rajasthan Educational
Subordinate Service Rules, 1971. Rule 6 (D) of the Rules
of 1971 which apply to teachers in schools directly
established by the State Government contemplates filling
up of vacancies in Secondary/Senior Secondary schools
from teachers working in the Panchayat Samities in the
Primary and Upper Primary schools and sub-section 9ofSection 89of the Act of of 1994 mandates that persons
holding posts encarded in service shall be eligible for
appointment or promotion to posts directly under the
State Government.5.     The learned Single Judge has noted that in an
earlier decision dated 03.12.2005 in S.B.Civil Writ
Petition No.1667/2015 Surendra Kumar Bhatt & Ors. Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors., notingSection 89and Rule 6
(D) the view taken was that without the consent of
teachers appointed under the Act of 1994, upon either
upgradation or merger of Primary and Upper Primary
schools with a Secondary/Senior Secondary school the
service of teacher could be transferred under the State
for the reason otherwise said teacher would become
surplus.The appellants argued before the learned Single
Judge that Rules 282 and 283 of the Rules of 1996 were
not considered by the Court in Surendra Kumar Bhatt's
case, for which the learned Single Judge noted that inS.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6272/2016 Bhagwana Ram Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors.decided on 30.05.2016 the
Court had considered the said two rules apart fromSection 89 (9)of the Act of 1994 and Rule 6 (D) of the
Rules of 1971 and pertaining to service under the State it
contemplates appointment and transfer of Primary and
Upper Primary school teachers. Sub-section 9ofSection
89of the Act of 1994 makes eligible persons holding
encarded posts under Zila Parishads to be appointed or
promoted to the posts in State service in accordance with
rules made in that behalf by the State Government. If
what the appellants contend to be the legal position is
accepted it would mean that the school in which they are
working would be merged with the Secondary/Senior
Secondary school and thus there would be no Primary or
Upper Primary school left in which they could serve and
                                (4 of 4)
                                                        [SAW-626/2018]

     thus they would face unemployment because posts held
     by them would cease to exist. All of them would be
     declared surplus and sent home.6.    We affirm the view taken by the learned Single
     Judge.7.     As regards grievance of being posted at a
     particular school the learned Single Judge has noted that
     a Grievance Redressal Committee has been constituted
     and has permitted the appellants to raise their grievance
     before the Grievance Redressal Committee.8.     The appeals are dismissed in limine."3.     Thus, in view of the facts noted hereinabove, above

captioned three appeals are dismissed.




(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR)J.                    (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)CJ.




Mohit Tak