Chander Shekhar vs The State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 14022 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17276/2022

1. Badri Prasad Lakhara S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Lakhara, Aged About 36 Years, R/o 261, Lakharo Ka Bas, Khinwsar, Tehsil Khinwsar, District Nagaur (Raj.).

2. Shahbaz Khan S/o Abdul Rauf Khan, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Near Old Post Office, Ward No. 5, Parbatsar, Tehsil Parbatsar, District Nagaur (Raj.).

----Petitioners 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 Nagaur, Rajasthan.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17316/2022 Chander Shekhar S/o Shri Ramesh Chandra, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Gotan, Tehsil Merta, District Nagaur.

----Petitioner Versus

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

2. The Additional Commissioner Cum Joint Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Nagaur.

                                                                ----Respondents


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



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

                                    Order

29/11/2022


                                          (2 of 3)

SBCW No. 17276 of 2022 has been filed by the petitioners

aggrieved against the order dated 29.09.2022 (Annex.-16),

whereby their objections to the provisional waiting list dated

13.09.2022, have been rejected.

The petitioners by filing objections sought grant of bonus

marks based on the experience certificate (Annex.-8) for their

contractual service under eq[;ea=h ch-ih-,y- thou j{kk ;kstuk and have

sought appointment on the post of LDC pursuant to Recruitment-

2013, in case, they appeared in merit.

In SBCW No. 17316 of 2022, the petitioner has sought

direction, to the respondents to countersign the experience

certificate produced by the petitioner Annex.-6, award bonus

marks and consider the candidature of the petitioner for

appointment on the post of LDC pursuant to Recruitment-2013, in

case, he appeared in merit.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the

issue raised in the present writ petitions is squarely covered

by order in Randhir Singh & Anr. v. State of Raj. & Ors.: SBCW

No. 8707/2017, decided on 31.05.2017 at Jaipur Bench, wherein

the Court has directed, issuance of experience certificate in

favour of the petitioners therein, who were working as LDC in

eq[;ea=h ch-ih-,y- thou j{kk ;kstuk (Chief Minister BPL Life Saving Fund Scheme).

It is further submitted that the said judgment of Randhir

Singh (supra) followed in Sunil Solanki & Ors. v. State of Raj. &

Ors.: SBCW No. 7918/2017 and other connected matters, decided

on 17.08.2017, wherein as many as 49 petitioners, were granted

similar relief and the same has again been followed in Satyapal

Gaidhar v. State of Raj. & Ors.: SBCW No. 10325/2017, decided

(3 of 3)

on 28.08.2017 by coordinate Benches of this Court and, therefore,

the present petitioners are entitled to similar relief.

Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that

though the issue raised by the petitioners is similar to that in the

cases of Randhir Singh/Sunil Solanki/Satyapal Gaidhar (supra),

the requirement under Rules 273 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj

Rules, 1996 is that they must have worked in a scheme under the

Panchayati Raj Department.

Submissions have been made that the said Scheme has

never been transferred to the Department and is being

administered by the State only, however, it is not denied that

similarly placed petitioners, have been accorded the relief.

In view of the above fact situation, wherein the orders have

been passed by the coordinate Benches way back in the year

2017, which have not been reversed and the petitioners are

similarly placed to the said petitioners, the present writ petitions

are allowed.

The respondents are directed to countersign the experience

certificate of the petitioner in SBCW No. 17316/2022. The action

of the respondents in rejecting the objections of the petitioners in

SBCW No. 17276/2022 disentitling the petitioners from taking the

benefit of bonus marks based on the certificate issued to them, is

set aside. The respondents are directed to accord the benefit of

bonus marks to the petitioners and proceed accordingly.

The needful may be done by the respondents within a period

of two weeks.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 181&182-PKS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)