Lalita vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 4392 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12857/2021

Lalita D/o Shri Shrichand, Aged About 50 Years, Naya Nagar, Opp. Fruit Mandi, Bhadwasiya Road, Paota, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, 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. Additional Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. District Programme Coordinator And District Collector, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

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

5. Develoment Officer, Panchayat Samiti Mandor, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

                                                                   ----Respondents


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


           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
                                     Order

21/03/2022

This writ petition is has been filed by the petitioner

questioning the validity of order dated 12.07.2021 (Annex.12),

whereby, the notional benefits to the petitioner have been declined

by the respondents and a direction to give all notional benefits to

the petitioner for the post of LDC as given to similarly situated

candidates / persons appointed in the year 2013.

(2 of 5) [CW-12857/2021]

It is inter-alia indicated in the petition that pursuant to the

advertisement dated 14.02.2013 (Annex.2), the petitioner applied

for the post of LDC in recruitment 2013.

The candidature of the petitioner was rejected for lack of

requisite qualification. Subsequently, the respondents issued

circular dated 11.07.2018 (Annex.5), whereby, the candidates

having Computer Science / Computer Application in senior

secondary as an additional subject also were held eligible.

The petitioner filed SBCWP No.11981/2018, which came to

be decided on 10.08.2018, whereby, the petition filed by the

petitioner was allowed and the respondents were directed to

consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the

post of LDC in pursuance to advertisement dated 14.02.2013

while treating her to be having a valid qualification of Computer

Application as obtained in Graduation / B.Ed. and provide her

appointment on the post of LDC if she is otherwise eligible.

Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner was accorded

appointment by order dated 29.09.2018 (Annex.7) and posting

was given to the petitioner on 05.10.2018.

When the petitioner sought grant of notional benefits and the

same was not accorded to the petitioner, the petitioner filed

SBCWP No.10058/2020, which came to be decided by order dated

25.11.2020, wherein, the Court came to the conclusion that the

issue raised was covered by judgment in Satdev Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9899/2019, decided

on 25.07.2020, directed the petitioner to file representation before

the competent authority and the competent authority was directed

to decide the same for grant of notional benefits.

(3 of 5) [CW-12857/2021]

Pursuant thereto, by order dated 12.07.2021 (Annex.12),

the representation made by the petitioner came to be rejected

with the following observations:-

"4- ;g gS fd vkids }kjk o'kZ 2013 es HkrhZ lacaf/kr "kS{kf.kd o iz"kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ugha gksus ds dkj.k vkosnu fujLr fd;k x;k FkkA ogh ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; vuqlkj ,oa foHkkxh; fn"kkfunsZ"kkuqlkj fu;qfDr vkns"k fnukad 29-09-2018 dks iapk;r lfefr eaMksj vkoafVr dj tkjh fd;k x;kA vr% mijksDrkuqlkj iwoZ esa HkrhZ lacaf/kr "kS{kf.kd o iz"kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ugha gksus ds dkj.k vkidk vkosnu fujLr fd;k x;k Fkk] ,sls esa uks"kuy ifjykHk fn;k tkuk laHko ugha gSA vkids vH;kosnu dks mDr fcUnqvksa ds ifjizs{; esa [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA "

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action

of the respondents in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for

grant of notional benefits by order impugned dated 12.07.2021

(Annex.12) is not justified, inasmuch as, similarly situated

candidates have been granted benefit.

Reference has been made to order dated 14.09.2021 passed

by Zila Parishad (Panchayat Section), Dungarpur, wherein, as

many as, 13 similarly situated candidates were accorded notional

benefits.

Further submissions were made that the determination made

by the respondents by order impugned has no basis, inasmuch as,

the petitioner was qualified in terms of the directions issued

subsequently by the respondents even in the year 2013 itself and,

therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not entitled for

the said benefit and consequently, the order impugned deserves to

be quashed and set aside.

Learned counsel appearing of the respondents supported the

order impugned. It was submitted that for lack of requisite

qualification, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected in the

(4 of 5) [CW-12857/2021]

year 2013 and only on account of subsequent circular dated

26.09.2018, the petitioner become eligible and as such, the

petitioner is not entitled to notional benefits.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

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

The qualification as indicated in the advertisement Annex.2,

which is subject matter of the present petition pertains to the

qualification pertaining to the computer knowledge.

Based on the indication made in the advertisement, initially

the candidature of the petitioner was rejected, however, the

respondents by circular dated 11.07.2018 (Annex.5) held that

those candidates having Computer Science / Computer Application

as additional subject in Senior Secondary would also be eligible.

Subsequently, another circular dated 26.09.2018 came to be

issued based on order passed in the case of Roopa Ram Meghwal

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

No.10050/2018, decided on 25.07.2018 holding that qualification

of Computer Application obtained in Graduation / B.Ed. would be

valid qualification.

Based on which, the petitioner was accorded appointment,

holding him eligible pursuant to the requirement of the

advertisement of the year 2013.

The determination made by the Authority by rejecting the

representation of the petitioner by holding that as in the year

2013, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected and the same

subsequently on account of order of the Court and departmental

circulars, she was accorded appointment, on that count, she was

not eligible, cannot be sustained, inasmuch as, by the circulars,

(5 of 5) [CW-12857/2021]

respondents have simply made those holding the qualification, as

eligible.

It is not a case, where a fresh eligibility has been indicated

for the purpose of candidates like petitioner to become qualified.

Admittedly, the petitioner was holding the qualification prior to the

year 2013, as the document filed by the petitioner indicates the

qualification having been obtained in the year 2011 as such, the

denial of notional benefits to the petitioner on the said count

cannot be sustained.

Besides the above, once the other Zila Parishad has accorded

the notional benefits to similarly situated candidates, as is

reflected from the documents filed by the petitioner as Annex.13,

there is no valid reason for the respondents to deny the same to

the petitioner.

Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is

allowed. The order dated 12.07.2021 (Annex.12) is quashed and

set aside.

The respondents are directed to accord notional benefits to

the petitioner on the post of LDC, as has been accorded to

similarly situated candidates vide Annex.13.

Needful may be done by the respondents within a period of

six weeks from the date of this order.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 14-pradeep/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)