The High Court has considered it wrong to do BEd and LLB simultaneously and conceal facts in RJS interview along with LLM while being a government teacher.

Denying relief to the petitioner, the decision of the Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court to terminate the service of the female judicial officer has been upheld. The bench of Justice Ashok Gaur and Ashutosh Kumar passed this order while rejecting the petition of Pinky Meena. RJS. The court said that the petitioner had deliberately concealed the fact that she had been a teacher at every stage of the RJS examination.

While delivering the judgment for the bench Justice Ashutosh Kumar held that, "From perusal of record, it transpires that the petitioneractively concealed material information about her GovernmentEmployment at every stage. She did not fill the requisite details in the application form of RJS Examination-2017, even though the application form mandatorily required her to do so. At the stage of the interview, the petitioner did not furnish the details that she was a government employment. The petitioner neither obtained Objection Form’ from the Education Department nor did she inform the department about her intentions to appear in the examination.

Additionally, the petitioner simultaneously pursued B.Ed and courses, which was impermissible under Ordinance 168-Aand 168-B of Handbook of University of Rajasthan. Further, the record clearly suggests that while being in regular employment in the Education Department of Rajasthan as a Teacher at SawaiMadhopur, she also pursued LL.M., which is also a regular course. 55.As per the counsel for the respondents these aspects were considered by Full Court while considering the ‘suitability’ of the petitioner to be confirmed for the post of RJS.

The court also held that in view of the aforementioned Rules, it transpires that when the impugned order was passed, the petitioner was working as a probationer. A person is placed on probation so as to enable the employer to adjudge his suitability for continuation in the service and also for confirmation in service. In the present case, the decision to discharge the petitioner from service was taken by the respondent considering her overall performance, conduct and suitability. It is settled law that the Appointing Authority should consider and appreciate the services of a Judicial Officer before confirming him/her in service and for this not only judicial performance but also probity as to how one has conducted himself/herself, is relevant and important.

However, it is also well settled that the principles of natural justice need not be followed before termination of services of a probationer. In catena of judgments Hon’ble the Supreme Court has observed that while taking a decision with respect to termination of services of a probationer no notice is necessary to be given to the probationer. He argued that the termination order is a termination simplicitor and cannot be called asstigmatic. He, therefore, argued that the order is sustainable in the eyes of law and, therefore, the present petition is a fit case for dismissal.

Case details:-

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6752/2020

Ms. Pinky Meena

Versus

The High Court Of Judicature, For Rajasthan At Jodhpur,Through Its Registrar General

Click here to view/download the judgment