Mohan Lal Meghwal vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 14431 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15764/2021

1. Mohan Lal Meghwal S/o Ram Lal Meghwal, Aged About 40 Years, Village Naharpura, Post Jambuda, Tehsil Salumber, District Udaipur.

2. Govind Lal Meena S/o Manohar Lao Meena, Aged About 39 Years, Mukam Hartalai, Post Jhadol, Tehsil Sarada, District Udaipur.

3. Shankar Lal Patel S/o Mangi Lal Patel, Aged About 32 Years, Mukam Dhakarada, Post Sagatada, Tehsil Sarada, District Udaipur.

4. Mohan Lal Patel S/o Lalu Ram Patel, Aged About 32 Years, Village Saipur, Post Sarada, Tehsil Sarada, District Udaipur.

5. Rajneesh Chaturveadi S/o Devram Chaturvedi, Aged About 38 Years, Mukam Post Dayali, Tehsil Sarada, District Udaipur.

6. Kanhaiya Lal Patel S/o Teji Lal Patel, Aged About 37 Years, Mukam Post Katanwada, Tehsil Sarada, District Udaipur.

7. Hans Raj Salvi S/o Nathu Lal Salvi, Aged About 39 Years, Mukam Post Navda, Tehsil Semari, District Udaipur.

8. Anil Kumar Meghwal S/o Laxmi Lal Meghwal, Aged About 38 Years, Near Police Station Sarada, Tehsil Sarada, District Udaipur.

9. Manoj Kumar Salvi S/o Ganesh Lal Salvi, Aged About 32 Years, Mukam Bandoli, Post Dayli, Tehsil Sarada, District Udaipur.

10. Bherulal Patel S/o Modji Patel, Aged About 38 Years, Mukam Post Sarada, Tehsil Sarada, District Udaipur.

11. Bhanwar Lal Lohar S/o Mangi Lal Lohar, Aged About 36 Years, Mukam Post Sarada, Tehsil Sarada, District Udaipur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

(2 of 7) [CW-15764/2021]

2. The Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Udaipur, District Udaipur.

4. Vikash Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Sarada, District Udaipur.

5. Vikash Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Salumber, District Udaipur.

6. Vikash Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Lasadiya, District Udaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramesh Kumar Prajapat. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Piyush Bhandari, AGC for Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Order

08/12/2022

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved

against order dated 15.7.2021 (Annex.9), whereby the

respondents while deciding the representation made by the

petitioners pursuant to the direction given by this Court seeking

notional benefits, has been rejected.

The petitioners applied for the post of LDC pursuant to

advertisement issued by the respondents for LDC Recruitment-

2013. The petitioners claimed their computer qualification other

than RS-CIT in the application form and thereafter, relied on the

said qualification.

When the said qualification was not taken into consideration

by the respondents, the petitioners approached this Court by filing

SBCWP No. 7252/2013, wherein an interim order dated 27.6.2013

was passed by this Court directing the respondents to take into

(3 of 7) [CW-15764/2021]

consideration the fact that the petitioners completed their course

with RS-CIT and respondents were directed to act accordingly.

Subsequent thereto, on account of litigation pertaining to

award of bonus marks, the recruitment remained pending and

ultimately after the issue got resolved by the order of Hon'ble

Supreme Court, the respondents restarted the process of

according appointments pursuant to Recruitment-2013. The

petitioners were then accorded appointments by the respondents

based on their RS-CIT qualification.

Subsequent thereto, the petitioners sought notional benefits

from the year 2013, when persons lower in merit to the

petitioners were accorded appointment, which was denied to the

petitioners.

The petitioners again approached this Court by filing SBCWP

No. 7951/2020 which came to be decided by order dated 3.9.2020

(Annex.8), requiring the respondents to decide the representation

to be made by the petitioners in light of order in Satdev Vs. State

of Rajasthan & Ors. : SBCWP No. 9899/2019, decided on

25.7.2020, which in turn was based on order in Om Prakash &

Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.21214/2017, decided on 21.11.2017.

The respondents by their impugned order dated 15.7.2021

(Annex.9), have rejected the representation with the observations

that as the petitioners were accorded appointment in the year

2017 and not in 2013, they are not entitled to grant of notional

benefits.

Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that

action of the respondents in denying the notional benefits to the

(4 of 7) [CW-15764/2021]

petitioners is ex-facie incorrect, inasmuch as, similarly placed

candidates have been accorded benefit by other Zila Parishads.

Reliance in this regard has been placed on order dated

14.9.2021 (Annex.10) passed by Zila Parishad, Dungarpur and

order dated 30.11.2021 (Annex.20) passed by Panchayat Samiti,

Khanpur, District Jhalawar. It is submitted that as the petitioners

are similarly placed, denial of the benefit to the petitioners is not

justified and that even otherwise in terms of the ratio of judgment

in the case of Om Prakash (supra), the petitioners are entitled to

the grant of notional benefits.

A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the State, inter

alia, taking the stand that as per the details of computer

qualification, which was provided by the petitioners in their

application form, they were not eligible and as the qualification of

RS-CIT has subsequently been included by the respondents, based

on which, the petitioner became eligible, they are not entitled to

notional benefits as claimed and, therefore, the petition deserves

dismissal.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

The respondents pursuant to the directions given by this

Court to decide the representation of the petitioners, have passed

a very cursory and casual order by distinguishing the order in the

case of Om Prakash (supra) by indicating that the same pertained

to Teacher Grade III Recruitment and that as the petitioners were

accorded appointment in the year 2017, they are not entitled to

notional benefits from 2013.

The determination made by the respondents, is apparently

incorrect, inasmuch as, even if the judgment in the case of Om

(5 of 7) [CW-15764/2021]

Prakash (supra) pertained to Teacher Grade III recruitment, it is

not the facts of the case but the ratio of the judgment, which is

applicable and binding and was relied on by the Court while

passing the order in the case of Satdev (supra), which pertain to

LDC Recruitment-2013 and, therefore, the rejection on the said

ground is baseless.

Further the indications made that as the petitioners were

appointed in the year 2017, they are not entitled to notional

benefits from 2013, is also missing the basic aspect, inasmuch as,

it is only when a person is appointed on a later date that he claims

notional benefits for the period prior to the date of appointment

and as such the reasons indicated in the order impugned cannot

be sustained.

Coming to the plea raised by the respondents by indicating

that as the RS-CIT qualification was not a requisite qualification

and the same only became valid on account of passing of the

circular dated 30.10.2017 (Annex.19) is concerned, the same

appears to be factually incorrect.

A look at the circular dated 7.5.2013 (Annex.13) produced

by the petitioners, inter alia, reveals the following:-

"ftu vkosndksa us vkj-,l-lh-vkbZ-Vh- izek.k i= gsrq jktLFkku ukWyst dkWjiksjs'ku fy- esa vkosnu izLrqr dj fn;k gSa ijUrq ifj.kke ?kksf"kr ugha gqvk gSa dks izksfotuy :i ls nLrkost lR;kiu gsrq cqyk fy;k tkosaA ,sls vkosndksa ls dEI;wVj ;ksX;rk laca/kh izek.k i= nLrkost lR;kiu ds le; vFkok p;u lwph rS;kj gksus ls iwoZ rd izkIr fd;s tk ldsxsaA p;u lwph izdkf'kr gksus ds ckn mDRk vkosndksa ls dEI;wVj ;ksX;rk laca/kh izek.k i= izkIr ugh fd;s tk ldsxsaA""

The indications made that if proof of having applied to the

Rajasthan Knowledge Corporation Ltd. for RS-CIT certificate is

produced, the said candidates would be provisionally called for

(6 of 7) [CW-15764/2021]

document verification and they would be required to produce their

certificates at the time of document verification or prior to the

preparation of the select list, which clearly establishes that the

qualification from RS-CIT was duly recognized by the respondents

as a valid qualification in terms of the advertisement itself way

back in the year 2013.

The circular dated 30.10.2017 (Annex.19), simply relates to

the cut-off date for the purpose of recognizing the qualification of

RS-CIT, which has been fixed at 30.6.2013, the said circular has

not made those holding the qualification of RS-CIT as qualified, as

the said qualification was already valid for the purpose of seeking

appointment pursuant to Recruitment-2013.

Further the interim order passed by this Court in petition

filed by the petitioners, on 27.6.2013 (Annex.14) is an speaking

order, wherein the aspect of RS-CIT qualification and the

respondents not permitting its consideration, while passing the

order requiring the respondents to take into consideration the fact

that the petitioners have completed their course with RS-CIT, the

respondents were directed to act accordingly, the order was

passed after hearing counsel for the respondents and, therefore,

the plea sought to be raised cannot be sustained on any count.

Further, the petitioners have taken a specific plea with

reference to the benefit having been accorded to other similarly

placed candidates by Zila Parishad, Dungarpur and Panchayat

Samiti, Khanpur, District Jhalawar, to which no response has been

given by the respondents and on that count also, the petitioners

cannot be discriminated.

In view of the above discussion, the determination made by

the respondents by the impugned order dated 15.7.2021

(7 of 7) [CW-15764/2021]

(Annex.9) denying the notional benefits to the petitioners, cannot

be sustained, the same is, therefore, set aside.

The respondents are directed to pass fresh orders in light of

what has already been discussed hereinabove.

Needful may be done within a period of four weeks from the

date of this order.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 9-sumer/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)