[2023/RJJD/002828] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13431/2022 Hansraj Singh Shekhawat S/o Bhanwar Singh Shekhawat, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Ward No. 3, Dantaur, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj., Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Zila Parishad, Bikaner, Through Its Chief Executive Officer.
3. Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Khajuwala, District Bikaner.
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shivatma Kumar Tank through V.C.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa with Mr. G.S. Chouhan JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order 30/01/2023
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered in petitioner's favour by the judgment dated 04.04.2019, passed by this Court in Mohhamad Umer Rangrej Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10333/2017.
2. Even after multiple opportunities being granted for filing reply, the same has not been done so far.
3. Mr. K.K. Bissa, learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to dispute the aforesaid position of facts and law.
(Downloaded on 30/01/2023 at 11:40:09 PM)[2023/RJJD/002828] (2 of 4) [CW-13431/2022]
4. In Mohhamad Umer Rangrej's case, this Court has held as under:-
"I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
A perusal of the order of appointment dated 17.06.2011 and 12.07.2011 indicate that a specific stipulation has been made in the order requiring the petitioners to obtain computer efficiency certificate and the order nowhere requires the petitioners to pass requisite type test.
Based on the said stipulation, once the petitioners have complied with the requirements and produced the requisite certificates within the time granted, after 05 years the respondents cannot require the petitioners to obtain a different qualification i.e. of having passed the type test.
Besides the fact that no stipulation has been indicated in the order of appointment, it is not the case of the respondents that the respondent department at any point of time held any type test where the petitioners failed to appear and/ or could not clear the same. Once, the respondents themselves have failed to hold any kind of type test, action of the respondents requiring the petitioners to obtain the requisite qualification cannot be sustained.
Further, the amendment made in the Rules requiring the candidates to have computer efficiency certificate is reflective of the changing times, as there is hardly any department where typewriters are in use and/ or available for being used and, therefore, on that count also (Downloaded on 30/01/2023 at 11:40:09 PM) [2023/RJJD/002828] (3 of 4) [CW-13431/2022] requirement now sought to be implemented/imposed after not indicating the same in the order of appointment, cannot be sustained.
In view of the above discussion, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed. The action of the respondents in denying annual grade increments to the petitioners and/ or not considering them for promotion, if, otherwise eligible, cannot be sustained and therefore set aside.
The petitioners would be entitled to grant of annual grade increments from the date they were entitled to the same and arrears in this regard would be paid to them. Further, in case the petitioners are eligible for promotion/were eligible for promotion, their cases would also considered in this regard.
The needful be done by the respondents within a period of four weeks."
5. In view of the assertion made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the present writ petition is allowed in terms of Mohhamad Umer Rangrej (supra) and the petitioner is also held entitled for grant of annual grade increment from the date he was entitled for the same (ignoring the requirement of clearing Type Test). Arrears be paid within a period of eight weeks from today and in case the petitioner is eligible for promotion, his case be considered, in accordance with law.
6. Since, the reply has not been filed, the respondent-State will be free to move an application for modification/recalling of the order within a period of six weeks, in case the facts asserted by the petitioner are found to be incorrect.
(Downloaded on 30/01/2023 at 11:40:09 PM)[2023/RJJD/002828] (4 of 4) [CW-13431/2022]
7. Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J 14-Ramesh/-
(Downloaded on 30/01/2023 at 11:40:09 PM)Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)