Chandra Singh Rathore vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 13237 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16519/2022

Chandra Singh Rathore S/o Nathu Singh Rathore, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village Negadia, Tehsil Nathdwara, District Rajsamand (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 Rajsamand, Rajasthan.

                                                 ----Respondents


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



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

                                    Order

10/11/2022

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that

though the petitioner is in possession of a certificate dated

28.04.2017 (Annex.6), for lack of of the same being counter

signed by the Chief Executive officer of the Zila Parishad, the

same has not been taken into consideration by the respondents

for award of bonus marks.

Further submissions have been made that in view of the

judgment of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs.

Mahender Kumar Meena: D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.322/2021,

decided on 13.05.2022, the position held by the petitioner i.e.

Cluster Coordinator entitles him to grant of bonus marks. Further,

(2 of 4) [CW-16519/2022]

the denial by the respondents to counter sign the certificate and

award bonus marks is not justified.

It is also emphasized that this Court in the case of Jagrati

Pandya Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: 14087/2022 in the

circumstances, where the counter signatures were not made, has

directed the respondents to do the needful and, therefore, the

petitioner is also entitled for similar directions.

Counsel for the respondents attempted to make submissions

that for lack of counter signatures and the fact that petitioner was

working as Cluster Coordinator and not a Block Coordinator, is not

entitled to any relief, however, it is not denied that issue as raised

is covered by orders in the case of Mahender Kumar Meena

(supra) and Jagrati Pandya (supra).

In the case of Mahender Kumar Meena (supra), the division

bench inter-alia came to the following conclusion:-

"A perusal of the relevant proviso to Rule 273 shows that for the purpose of grant of weightage marks, the Coordinator IEC, Coordinator Training or Coordinator Supervision engaged for the work in MGNREGA or any other scheme of the Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj in the State are entitled to get weightage for the experience gained while working in any of the categories. The category of Coordinator is based on the basis of nature of duties and functions and not the hierarchy whether it is Block Coordinator or Panchayat Coordinator. The nature of duties, which the respondent-petitioner is found to have discharged and on the basis of which he claimed weightage, is essentially of the Coordinator in the category of supervision. Irrespective of hierarchy whether Block Coordinator or Panchayat Coordinator, if the respondent-petitioner has been found to be working as Coordinator discharging his duties and functions

(3 of 4) [CW-16519/2022]

which are in the nature of supervision in connection with the work of the department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, there is no reason to deny him the benefit of weightage. Therefore, the argument that Panchayat Coordinator is excluded for the purpose of grant of weightage from the ambit and scope of second proviso to Rule 273 of the Rules of 1996 has rightly been rejected by the learned Single Judge.

We find no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed."

From the above determination made by the Division Bench,

it is apparent that the post held by the petitioner as Cluster

Coordinator would also be eligible for award of bonus marks.

In the case of Jagrati Pandya (supra), it was inter-alia

observed and directed as under:-

"I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

The case of the respondents is that though the certificate dated 15.09.2015 was issued by the Panchayat Samiti, Sagwada to the petitioner, the petitioner at the relevant time did not produce the same for counter sign by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dungarpur and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief claimed. As to whether the petitioner at the relevant time, approached the competent authority for counter signing the experience certificate or not, is in the realm of uncertainty. On part of the petitioner he has neither produced any material in this regard nor apparently there is any reason for the petitioner not approaching the competent authority for the said purpose.

In so far as, the circular of the State prohibiting counter signing the experience certificate on 12.02.2020 is concerned, though the purpose of issuance of such a circular may not be disputed, however, in the circumstances wherein the case of the

(4 of 4) [CW-16519/2022]

petitioner is that the petitioner otherwise is entitled for award of bonus marks and the certificate was issued to the petitioner way back in the year 2015, only on account of issuance of circular dated 12.02.2020, the relief claimed by the petitioner cannot be denied.

Consequently, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The respondent - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dungarpur is directed to counter sign the experience certificate of the petitioner dated 15.09.2015 issued by the Panchayat Samiti Sagwada, Distt. Dungarpur in accordance with law.

Needful may be done by the authority within a period of one week and based on the said certificate, if counter signed by the competent authority, the petitioner would be entitled to bonus marks in accordance with law."

In view of the judgments in the case of Mahender Kumar

Meena (supra) and Jagrati Pandya (supra), the petition filed by the

petitioner is allowed. The respondent - Chief Executive Officer,

Zila Parishad, Rajsamand is directed to counter sign the

experience certificate of the petitioner dated 28.04.2017 signed by

the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Khamnor, District

Rajsamand in accordance with law.

Needful may be done by the authority within a period of one

week and based on the said certificate, if counter signed by the

competent authority, the petitioner would be entitled to bonus

marks in accordance with law.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 113-pradeep/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)