Nirbhay Singh Rathore vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 14007 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17207/2022

Nirbhay Singh Rathore S/o Megh Singh Rathore, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Village Madrecho Ka Guda, Post Bhensha Kamed, 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 Rathore. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kunal Upadhyay for Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Order

29/11/2022

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue

raised in the present writ petition is similar to Chandra Singh

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

No.16519/2022, decided on 10.11.2022, wherein, a similar nature

writ petition has been allowed.

Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to

dispute the fact that the issue raised in the present petition is

similar to the case of Chandra Singh Rathore (supra).

(2 of 3) [CW-17207/2022]

In the case of Chandra Singh Rathore (supra), it was, inter-

alia, observed and directed as under :-

"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 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.

(3 of 3) [CW-17207/2022]

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 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."

In view of the above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner

is allowed in light of and with the similar directions as given in the

case of Chandra Singh Rathore (supra).

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 180-Rmathur/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)