Gajanan Dayam vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 13958 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 833/2022

Gajanan Dayam S/o Shri Ramesh Chandra Dayam, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Fauj Mohalla, Near Charbhuja Temple, Nathdwara, District Rajsamand (Raj.).

----Appellant 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, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

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

----Respondents

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

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. PANKAJ MITHAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

28/11/2022

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The appellant, for the purpose of getting appointment on the

post of Block Coordinator-cum-Computer Operator (with Machine),

is seeking bonus marks qua the experience gained by him under

the Shakshar Bharat Mission.

The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment and

order dated 25.08.2022 has dismissed the writ petition on the

ground that such a benefit of bonus marks under the

(2 of 2) [SAW-833/2022]

advertisement is available only to the candidates having

experience with any of the schemes of MGNREGA or Panchayati

Raj Department. The Shakshar Bharat Mission is not a scheme of

the Panchayati Raj Department rather it is a scheme of the Central

Government which is being run by the Elementary Education

Department.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that under the

directions of the High Court in an earlier petition, the same benefit

was granted to the candidates having experience under the Sarva

Shiksha Abhiyan.

Be that as it may, since under the terms and conditions of

the advertisement, the benefit is only available to the candidates

having experience under the schemes run by the Panchayati Raj

Department, the appellant is not entitled to the said benefit.

In view of the aforesaid finding and the terms and conditions

contained in the advertisement, we do not find any merit in this

appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.

(DINESH MEHTA),J (PANKAJ MITHAL),CJ

8-Jayesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)