Bhupesh Kumar Parmar vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 14611 Raj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 14611 Raj
Judgement Date : 13 December, 2022

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Bhupesh Kumar Parmar vs State Of Rajasthan on 13 December, 2022

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2893/2022

Bhupesh Kumar Parmar S/o Kanhaiya Lal Ji, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Parmar Floor Mills, Sindhi Colony, Dungarpur (Raj.).

----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. Additional Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

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

4. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Khairwara, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Pawan Singh
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Piyush Bhandari for Mr. Sunil
                               Beniwal, AAG



                    JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                    Order

13/12/2022

1. The petitioner having vied for the post of LDC recruitment,

2013 stood meritorious.

2. At the time of document verification, he produced a

computer proficiency certificate of CMJ University, Meghalaya, for

which his selection was kept in abeyance pending verification of

the said course.

3. During the pendency of the recruitment in the year 2017, in

furtherance of circular issued by the State Government, the

petitioner claims to have requested the respondents to consider

his certificate issued by the Calorx Teacher's University for the

(2 of 3) [CW-2893/2022]

purpose of considering his educational qualification rather

computer proficiency.

4. Petitioner's such representation is said to be pending before

the respondents.

5. When the State decided to commence exercise of filling the

remaining posts of LDC recruitment, 2013, the petitioner has

approached this Court with the apprehension that the respondents

may reject his candidature.

6. Mr. Pawan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner argued

that the computer course, which the petitioner has undertaken

from Calorx Teacher's University, makes the petitioner

eligible/entitled for appointment and submitted that the issue

involved in the writ petition is squarely covered by a coordinate

Bench decision dated 04.02.2021, rendered in the case of Praveen

Kumar Vs. State of Raj. & Anr. S.B. (Civil Writ Petition

No.16749/2019).

7. Mr. Piyush Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the State

is not in a position to dispute the aforesaid position of facts and

law. He however submitted that the respondents be given liberty

to examine and verify the correctness of the certificate and the

qualification on the basis whereof the petitioner is claiming his

eligibility.

8. In the case of Praveen Kumar (supra) this Court has held

thus:-

"The observations made that the certificate

should bear a date of issuance, prior to the preparation of first select list in June, 2013 has to be read in the context of the prayer made and it cannot be said that the judgment has dealt with an issue pertaining to the qualification having been obtained

(3 of 3) [CW-2893/2022]

prior to the cut off date and the certificate having been issued subsequently, more particularly on account of the various circulars issued by the respondent after the date of judgment in the case of Sangeeta Sen (supra).

In view of the above discussion, the writ petition

filed by the petitioner is allowed, the respondents are directed to take into consideration the qualification relied on by the petitioner, get the same verified in accordance with law and in case the same is found in order / genuine, the petitioner falls in merit in his category and any post is still vacant, he may be accorded appointment in accordance with law."

9. Following the adjudication made by the coordinate Bench of

this Court in Praveen Kumar (supra), the present writ petition is

also disposed of in terms thereof and the respondents are directed

to consider petitioner's representation in light of the certificate he

has obtained from Calorx Teacher's University (Annex.-4), if the

same has been produced before the respondents as claimed by

the petitioner.

10. It will be open for the respondents to verify the genuineness

of the certificate so also recognition etc of the qualification

obtained by the petitioner in accordance with law. In case the

same is found in order and petitioner is otherwise found eligible,

appointment shall be accorded to him in accordance with law

without any delay.