The Rajasthan High Court has clarified the application of Rule 23-A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, concerning the termination of government employees. The court ruled that employees appointed through a regular selection process and currently on probation cannot be classified as temporary employees under Rule 23-A.
Background of the Case
- Petition: The case involved a petition filed by a Class IV employee whose services were terminated under Rule 23-A. The termination order was challenged by the petitioner.
- Bench: Justice Mahendra Kumar Goyal presided over the case.
- Previous Decision: The court referenced the decision in Dinesh Kumar Meena v. State of Rajasthan, where it was established that Rule 23-A does not apply to probationary employees.
Court’s Findings
- Rule 23-A Applicability: The court determined that Rule 23-A is intended only for temporary government servants and does not apply to probationers. Probationary employees are governed by statutory rules applicable to their probationary status, not as temporary employees.
- Court’s Opinion: The court concluded that once an employee is appointed through a regular selection process and is on probation, they should not be treated as a temporary employee under Rule 23-A. Termination under this rule for probationers was deemed incorrect and illegal.
Respondents’ Argument and Court’s Rejection
- Respondents’ Position: The respondents admitted that the invocation of Rule 23-A was erroneous. However, they argued that the termination was due to unsatisfactory performance, not solely due to the wrong provision.
- Court’s Rejection: The court rejected this argument, noting that the respondents had defended their decision based on the erroneous classification of the petitioner as a temporary employee. The additional affidavit submitted by the respondents, which still incorrectly treated the petitioner as temporary during probation, was insufficient to justify the termination.
Conclusion
The court found that the respondents intentionally misapplied Rule 23-A to terminate the petitioner’s services, which was not justified. The arguments put forth by the respondents were dismissed, reinforcing the distinction between probationary and temporary employees.
Multiple-Choice Questions (MCQs):
- What was the key issue in the Rajasthan High Court case?
- A) Application of Rule 23-A to permanent employees
- B) Termination of probationary employees under Rule 23-A
- C) Appointment procedures for temporary employees
- D) Regularization of temporary employees
- Which court decision did the Rajasthan High Court rely on in this case?
- A) Dinesh Kumar Meena v. State of Rajasthan
- B) Ramchandra v. Union of India
- C) Pritam Singh v. State of Rajasthan
- D) Shyam Sundar v. Government of Rajasthan
- What did the respondents incorrectly argue about the petitioner’s status?
- A) The petitioner was a permanent employee.
- B) The petitioner was on a temporary contract.
- C) The petitioner was a probationary employee.
- D) The petitioner was a temporary employee during probation.
- What did the court conclude about the application of Rule 23-A?
- A) It applies to both temporary and probationary employees.
- B) It is only applicable to permanent employees.
- C) It applies only to temporary employees, not probationers.
- D) It is applicable to employees on leave.