Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Giresh Dindor vs State Of Rajasthan on 4 April, 2022

Bench: Arun Bhansali

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12914/2021

Giresh Dindor S/o Shri Hurji Dindor, aged about 35 Years, R/o Tanda Mangla, Tehsil Kushalgarh, District Banswara, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj (Panchayati Raj), Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Deputy Secretary, Administrative Reforms (Group-3) Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. Additional Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Banswara, Rajasthan.

                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Pawan Singh.
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Kunal Upadhyay on behalf of
                                 Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG.



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

                                      Order

04/04/2022

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved

against the letter dated 19.08.2021 (Annex.22) and seeking a

direction to the respondents to accord appointment to the

petitioner on the post of Lower Division Clerk ('LDC') against the

category of TSP ST (Male) with all consequential benefits pursuant

to Advertisement-2013 and consider the candidature of the

(2 of 5) [CW-12914/2021]

petitioner as per verification of his qualification of higher

secondary mark-sheet.

It it, inter-alia, indicated in the petition that an

advertisement for recruitment of LDC-2013 came to be issued by

the respondents. The petitioner filled-up the application form in

this regard. An experience certificate was issued to the petitioner

indicating that the petitioner has worked from 01.05.2008 to

11.03.2013 under the scheme of MGNREGA in Panchayat Samiti-

Sajjangarh on the post of 'Assistant Worker' on contract basis. The

Zila Parishad, Banswara issued a list (Annex.20) of the selected

candidates on 11.12.2019, but name of the petitioner did not

appear in the said list.

It is claimed that the petitioner made a representation dated

03.05.2021 (Annex.21) to the Chief Executive Officer, Zila

Parishad, Banswara seeking appointment as per the cutoff, as he

was qualified and entitled to bonus marks.

The representation came to be decided on 19.08.2021

(Annex.22), wherein it was indicated that the experience gained

by the petitioner as Assistant Worker was not eligible for bonus

marks and as the petitioner has obtained marks less than the

General and ST candidates, he is not in merit and as such rejected

the representation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions with

reference to Notification dated 17.12.2012 (Annex.5) indicating

that Rule 273 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996

('Rules') came to be amended by the said notification, wherein the

provision was made that those who were working on 'any post

under any Scheme of the Department of Rural Development and

Panchayati Raj', were entitled for bonus marks and as the

(3 of 5) [CW-12914/2021]

experience gained by the petitioner falls in the said category, he is

entitled for award of the bonus marks. Submissions were made

that only because the petitioner had worked as Assistant Worker,

which position is equivalent to that of Class-IV employee, it cannot

be said that the petitioner is not entitled for award of the bonus

marks in view of specific stipulation in this regard in the Rules and

therefore, the action of the respondents in rejecting the

representation of the petitioner deserves to be set aside and the

respondents be directed to award bonus marks to the petitioner.

Reliance was placed on Ramniwas vs. The State of Rajasthan

& Anr. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10519/2017 decided on

08.02.2018 and Pushkar Garg vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. :

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2622/2018 decided on 06.11.2019.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents made

submissions that the petitioner has discharged the duties as a

Class-IV employee and the post of Class-IV employee has not

been mentioned in the Rules and therefore, the petitioner is not

entitled for award of bonus marks for his experience as a Class-IV

employee and the writ petition deserves dismissal.

I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for

the parties and have perused the material available on record.

The relevant provision for award of bonus marks, as

amended by notification dated 17.12.2012, reads as under:

"Provided also that in case of appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk, merit shall be prepared by the Appointing Authority on the basis of marks obtained in such qualifying academic examination as specified in the schedule I of chapter XII of these rules and such bonus marks as may be specified by the State Government having regard to the length of experience, more than one year, as Junior Technical Assistant (J.T.A.), Junior Engineer, Gram Rozgar Sahayak, Data Entry Operator, Computer Operation with Machine (engaged other than placement agencies), Lekha Sahayak, Lower Division Clerk, Co-

(4 of 5) [CW-12914/2021]

ordinator IEC, Coordinator Training, Coordinator Supervision in MGNREGA or any post under any scheme of the Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj."

A bare look at the above provision would reveal that bonus

marks, as may be specified by the State Government having

regard to the length of experience of more than one year of

various posts have been indicated for being eligible for award of

bonus marks and after indicating several posts by way of residue,

'any post under any scheme of the Department of Rural

Development and Panchayati Raj' has been indicated. It would be

seen that various positions, which have been indicated, none of

them, is lower than the position of an LDC, either the post

indicated are higher or equivalent to LDC.

Admittedly, the petitioner has gained experience while

working as a Class-IV employee. The submission made that as the

Rule indicates 'any post', even if the petitioner has worked as

Class-IV employee, he would be entitled to award of bonus marks,

cannot be countenanced applying the principle of ejusdem

generis, the words 'any post', would take its colour from the

preceding posts, which have been indicated and as noticed, none

of the post is lower than that of LDC and as such, the petitioner

cannot claim that his experience as Assistant Worker/Class-IV

employee, would be eligible for award of the bonus marks.

The judgment in the case of Ramniwas (supra) would have

no application, inasmuch as the same pertains to the case of MIS

under the MGNREGA and as MIS under other Scheme, was

accorded benefit.

Similarly, the judgment in the case of Pushkar Garg (supra)

also has no application to the facts of the present case, as the

(5 of 5) [CW-12914/2021]

petitioners therein were working as Care Giver with Sarva Shiksha

Abhiyan. The Court in the above judgment, categorically came to

the following conclusion:

"A bare look at the indications made in the advertisement as well as the Rule indicate that several posts have been enumerated therein having totally varied job profiles, inasmuch as, the post of Junior Technical Assistant, Junior Engineer, Data Entry Operator, Computer Operator with Machine etc. have been included. The job profile of Junior Engineer can in no manner be compared with that of Data Entry Operator and/or Computer Operator with Machine, which clearly indicates the intention to award bonus marks to those serving with the department at a certain level irrespective of their job profile.

xxx This is not the case of the respondents in the reply that the work of Care Taker being undertaken by the petitioners is not similar to any of the positions, which have been indicated in the advertisement/Rule 273. The indication, which has been made in the order impugned (Annex.P/9 quoted above) is that as the post of Care Giver is not included in the advertisement, the petitioners are not entitled for award of bonus marks."

In the above judgment, the Court came to the conclusion

that the intention was to award bonus marks to those serving with

the Department 'at a certain level irrespective of their job profile'

and it was found as a fact that it was not the case of the

respondents that the work of Care Giver undertaken by the

petitioners therein, was not similar to any of the positions

indicated in Rule 273 of the Rules.

It is not the case of the petitioner that the position of the

petitioner being Class-IV employee could be compared to any of

the positions as indicated in the Rule and as such, the

determination made by the respondents in the order impugned

dated 19.08.2021, cannot be faulted.