Gotam Lal Charpota vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 8904 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 808/2022

1. Gotam Lal Charpota S/o Shri Rama Charpota, Aged About 31 Years, Village Vilvapada, Post And Tehsil Ghatol, District Banswara (Rajasthan).

2. Mannalal Maida S/o Shri Unkar Ji Maida, Aged About 39 Years, Village And Post Harnathpura, Tehsil Chhoti Sarwan, District Banswara (Rajasthan).

3. Chhaganlal Khadiya S/o Shri Lalu Khadiya, Aged About 38 Years, Village Ambawaj, Post Harnathpura, Tehsil Chhoti Sarwan, District Banswara (Rajasthan).

4. Shanti Lal Dindor S/o Shri Bhuralal Dindor, Aged About 36 Years, Village And Post Danakshri, Tehisl Chhoti Sarwan, District Banswara (Rajasthan).

----Petitioners Versus

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

2. The Secretary, Department Of Finance, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Rajasthan Employees Selection Board, State Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur 302018 Through Its Secretary.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18103/2021

1. Dinesh Chandra Yadav S/o Shri Kalu Ram, Aged About 35 Years, Village And Post Semliya, Tehsil Pipalkhunt, District Pratapgarh (Rajasthan).

2. Tola Ram Kharadi S/o Hukiya Kharadi, Aged About 38 Years, Village Ranpur, Post Prathvipura, Tehsil And District Pratapgarh (Rajasthan).

3. Bapulal Ninama S/o Nathuji, Aged About 37 Years, Village Gagarwa, Post Godi Tejpur, Tehsil Chhoti Sarwan, District Banswara (Rajasthan).

4. Kailash Chandra Joshi S/o Dhruv Shanker Joshi, Aged About 42 Years, Shree Ji Colony Bus Stand, Talwara, District Banswara (Rajasthan).

5. Dhuleshwar Ninama S/o Devji Ninama, Aged About 39 Years, Village Dharna, Post Bori P, Tehsil Pipalkhunt, District Pratapgarh (Rajasthan).

6. Sandeep Kumar Tailor S/o Rupaji Tailor, Aged About 37 Years, Nh 113, Main Road, Pipalkhunt, District Pratapgarh (Rajasthan).

                                                                ----Petitioners


                                              (2 of 8)                         [CW-808/2022]


                                     Versus

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

2. The Secretary, Department Of Finance, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Rajasthan Employees Selection Board, State Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur 302018 Through Its Secretary.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Misc(Writ) Stay Application No. 9644/2022 Dinesh Chandra Yadav S/o Shri Kalu Ram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village And Post Semliya, Tehsil Pipalkhunt, District Pratapgarh (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

                                                                       ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Pawan Singh.
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. G.R. Punia, Sr. Advocate assisted
                                  by Mr. Jai Naveen.
                                  Mr. Kunal Upadhyay for
                                  Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG.
                                  Mr. Manvendra K. Bhati.



               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

                                      Order

07/07/2022

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners

seeking a direction to the respondents to provide 12.5%

horizontal reservation to the Ministerial Employees/in-service

candidates/Government Employees in relation to the

advertisement dated 06.09.2021 for the post of Village

Development Officer.

The petitioners, who are working on the post of Lower

Division Clerk under different Panchayat Samitis of different Zila

(3 of 8) [CW-808/2022]

Parishads have raised grievance that the respondents have issued

advertisement dated 06.09.2021 (Annex.1) for recruitment on the

post of Village Development Officer, whereby, as many as 3,222

post in Non-TSP and 674 post in TSP area have been advertised.

However, in the advertisement, no provision has been indicated

providing reservation to Ministerial Employees/in-service

candidates/Government Employees and, therefore, the action of

the respondents in this regard in not providing for the reservation

is not justified.

Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions with

reference to the recruitment to the post of Computer vide

advertisement dated 03.09.2021 (Annex.3) in SBCWP

No.808/2022 and that of Laboratory Assistant pursuant to

advertisement dated 09.05.2018 (Annex.6) in SBCWP

No.18103/2021 and for the post of Accountant and Junior

Accountant pursuant to advertisement dated 06.09.2021

(Annex.7) that as in the said recruitments, reservation to the

Ministerial Employees has been provided, the non-providing of the

reservation by the respondents in the present recruitment is not

justified.

Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that

provisions of Rule 262 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules,

1996 ('the Rules of 1996') provides for reservation of vacancies

for other categories, wherein the reservation has been provided

for physically handicapped candidates and as Sub Rule (2) of Rule

262 has made applicable other provisions regarding reservation of

vacancies to the recruitment in the Panchayat Samiti and Zila

Parishad Services and, therefore, the action of the respondents in

(4 of 8) [CW-808/2022]

not providing for the reservation to the extent of 12.5% in the

present recruitment is not justified.

Reliance has been placed on judgment in Jitendra Kumar &

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

No.6947/2017, decided on 07.09.2017.

Learned counsel appearing for the State made submissions

that the plea raised by the petitioners seeking reservation for the

post of Village Development Officer is baseless. Submissions have

been made that under Rule 262 (2) of the Rules of 1996 though

other provisions regarding reservation of vacancies have been

made applicable but no general provision providing for reservation

for Ministerial Employees has been cited so as to seek reservation

in the present recruitment.

Submissions have been made that nowhere for recruitment

on the post of Village Development Officer reservation for

ministerial employees has been provided by the State either under

the Rules and/or by any separate notification in this regard and as

such, the plea raised by the petitioners in this regard has no basis.

Further submissions have been made that insofar as the

recruitment to the post of Computer, Laboratory Assistant and

Accountant are concerned, wherein, such reservation has been

provided, the same is based on the applicable Rules, which

specifically provide for such reservation.

Reference has been made to the provisions of Rajasthan

Subordinate Service (Recruitment and Other Service Conditions)

Amendment Rules, 2011 providing for reservation for Ministerial

Employees for the post of Computer and Rajasthan Educational

Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 which provides for reservation for

the Ministerial Staff for the post of Laboratory Assistant.

(5 of 8) [CW-808/2022]

Further submissions have been made that in terms of Rule

258 of the Rules of 1996, the post of Village Development Officer

is part of Ministerial and Subordinate Post in the Panchayat Samiti

and Zila Parishad service and on that account apparently in the

Rajasthan Rural Development and Panchayati Raj State and

Subordinate Service Rules, 1998 the post of Village Level Worker

cum Secretary, Panchayat, which post has been renamed as

Village Development Officer, has not been reflected and as such,

the claim made providing for reservation in this regard is

otherwise untenable.

Further submissions have been made that there are no

general provisions either under the Rajasthan Subordinate Service

(Recruitment and Other Service Conditions) Rules, 2001 and/or

any other provision providing for the reservation for ministerial

candidates and in all the recruitments, wherever such reservation

has been provided, same is based on specific provision in the

Rules and, therefore, the plea raised by the petitioners in this

regard deserves rejection and the petitions deserve to be

dismissed.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

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

The petitioners have claimed the reservation as Ministerial

Staff for the post of Village Development Officer in the recruitment

pursuant to the advertisement dated 06.09.2021 (Annex.1). The

basis for claiming the reservation as noticed hereinbefore is Rule

262 (2) of the Rules of 1996, which reads as under:-

"Rule 262. Reservation of vacancies for other categories.- Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, certain percentage of posts to be filled in by director recruitment shall be reserved for physically handicapped candidates as per rules of the State Government and shall be filled in accordance

(6 of 8) [CW-808/2022]

with the provisions of the Rajasthan Employment of the Person with Disabilities Rules 2000.

(2) Other provisions regarding reservation of vacancies shall also be applicable as prevailing in the State Government from time to time."

A perusal for the above provisions would reveal that the Rule

specifically provides for reservation for Physically Handicapped

candidates as per Rule of the State Government and further

provides for other provision regarding reservation of vacancies

shall also be applicable as prevailing in the State Government

from time to time.

The above provision is enabling in applying other provisions

regarding reservation to the vacancies under the provisions of the

Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act/Rules, 1996, however, 'other

provisions' must exist for the purpose of applying the same to the

recruitment under the Act/Rules.

Despite repeated query made to counsel for the petitioners

about any general provision/circular of the State providing for

reservation for ministerial candidates like petitioners in all the

recruitments, counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any

provision and has referred only to provisions of 262 (2) of the

Rules of 1996 and, therefore, in absence of any specific provision/

Rule in this regard under the Rules of 1996, the plea raised by the

petitioners seeking application of the reservation for the

ministerial candidates cannot be countenanced.

So far as the reliance placed on the recruitment to the post

of Computer, Laboratory Assistant and Accountant is concerned,

the same, as specifically submitted by learned counsel for the

respondent, are governed by the provisions of Rajasthan

Subordinate Service (Recruitment and other Service Conditions)

Amendment Rules, 2011, which provides that 12.5% of the post

(7 of 8) [CW-808/2022]

of computer, to be filled in by direct recruitment, shall be reserved

and filled in from the ministerial staff of the Evaluation

Organization, holding a post in the cadre substantively; for the

post of Laboratory Assistant, the Rajasthan Education Subordinate

Service Rules, 1971 provides that recruitment shall be 100% by

direct recruitment out of which 12.5% of the post shall be

reserved for being filled from the Laboratory boys/servant of

School Education Department in accordance with proviso (5) to

Rule 6 of the said Rules and similarly, in the Rajasthan

Subordinate Accounts Service Rules, 1963, 12.5% reservation for

the Ministerial Staff of the Departments of the Government has

been provided.

In view of the above fact situation, wherein, in the instances

cited by counsel for the petitioners, specific provisions have been

indicated under various Rules and apparently, no general/specific

provisions dealing with the grant of reservation to ministerial

candidates are available, the plea sought to be raised by the

petitioners seeking reservation for the post of Village Development

Officer cannot be countenanced.

So far as the judgment in the case of Jitendra Kumar (supra)

is concerned, in the said case issue pertained to whether the

petitioners therein, who were working on the post of Lower

Division Clerk and Upper Division Clerk in the Panchayati Raj

services could lay their claim against 12.5% reservation available

for the ministerial staff of the Departments of the Government as

envisaged under Rule 6 (iii) of the Rajasthan Subordinate

Accounts Service Rules, 1963, which issue, is totally different and

does not deal with aspect sought to be argued by counsel for the

petitioners.

(8 of 8) [CW-808/2022]

In view of the above discussion, it is apparent that for lack of

any specific provision providing for reservation for ministerial

employees as claimed by the petitioners, the advertisement issued

by the respondents cannot be faulted.

There is no substance in the writ petitions, the same are,

therefore, dismissed.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 181-183-

Pradeep Limba/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)