Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Rajmal Khatik vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 24 April, 2023

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2023/RJJD/011554]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17084/2022

Rajmal Khatik S/o Shri Shankar Lal Khatik, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village - Suraj Nagar, Post Lulas, Shahpura, District - Bhilwara (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Chittorgarh, District Chittorgarh (Raj.).

                                                                    ----Respondents


    For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. J.S. Bhaleria
    For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG with
                                   Mr. Kunal Upadhyay


            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
                                        Order

REPORTABLE
   24/04/2023

         Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer that

the experience certificate produced by the petitioner may be

considered for grant of bonus marks and thereafter, if the

petitioner falls in the merit list, he may be given appointment on

the post of LDC.

Briefly, the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are

that the petitioner after completion of his Secondary and Senior

Secondary school education, acquired graduation from MDS

University, Ajmer in the year 2010. Thereafter, he also obtained an

RSCIT Certificate from the University concerned on 03.07.2010.

The petitioner had also performed the work of Data Entry Operator

on "job basis" in MGNREGA Scheme in the Panchayat Samiti from

[2023/RJJD/011554] (2 of 8) [CW-17084/2022]

15.11.2008 to 30.06.2010. The petitioner was appointed on the

post of Computer Operator in MGNREGA Scheme on 01.01.2011.

The petitioner applied for the post of LDC in pursuance of the

advertisement issued by the respondents in the year 2013. The

experience certificate which was granted to the petitioner for

performing the work on "job basis" from 15.11.2008 to

30.06.2010 was not considered for grant of bonus marks to the

petitioner and that is why he has preferred this writ petition with

the prayer for considering the certificate issued by the

respondents of having performed the job of Computer Data

Operator on "job basis" and for allocation of appropriate marks on

the basis of the same.

Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has the

experience certificate dated 14.08.2017 of having performed the

work of Data Entry Operator on "job basis" from 15.11.2008 to

30.06.2010 and another experience certificate dated 24.04.2013

of having performed the work of Computer Data Operator w.e.f.

01.01.2011 to 31.03.2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that both the experience certificates should have been

taken into consideration for allocation of bonus marks in view of

Rule 273 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter

referred to as 'the Rules of 1996').

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially, while

preparing the merit list, both the certificates were taken into

consideration for grant of bonus marks to the petitioner, however,

after document verification, the list of successful candidates was

issued for appointment on the post of LDC, but the petitioner's

name was not in the list. On inquiry having been made, it was

[2023/RJJD/011554] (3 of 8) [CW-17084/2022]

informed to the petitioner that he is not entitled to the bonus

marks for the certificate issued to him on 14.08.2017 on account

of the fact that he has performed the duties of Data Entry

Operator on "job basis". Learned counsel submits that since the

petitioner performed the work of Computer Data Operator,

therefore, the manner in which he was engaged is not relevant.

He submits that as per proviso to Rule 273, the words which are

of vital importance is the "Length of Experience" which is

required to be taken into consideration and since the petitioner

has performed the work of Data Entry Operator, the same should

have been required to be taken into consideration while allocating

the marks of experience. He also submits that merely because the

mode of "Engagement" was "job basis", the experience gained

by the petitioner on the post of Data Entry Operator cannot be

washed away. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in

proviso to Rule 273, the kind of engagements have not been

mentioned, thus, it will not be of any significance whether the

petitioner performed the work of Computer Data Operator on

being engaged on "job basis", contract basis or through placement

agency. He, therefore, prays that the present writ petition may be

allowed and the respondents may be directed to consider

allocation of marks considering the experience certificate dated

14.08.2017.

In support of his contention, learned counsel for the

petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court

rendered in the case of Mitendra Singh Rathore V/s State of

Rajasthan, reported in 2013 4 RLW (Raj.) 3451.

[2023/RJJD/011554] (4 of 8) [CW-17084/2022]

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has

vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel

for the petitioner and submits that as per the condition of the

advertisement itself, it is more than clear that the experience

certificate of only those persons, who are appointed on contractual

basis, will be considered. He further submits that since the

petitioner was not appointed on contractual basis he was engaged

only on the "job basis", thus, he is not entitled for grant of bonus

marks for the work performed by him on "job basis" as per the

experience certificate dated 14.08.2017. Learned counsel also

submits that the word "Engagement" has been used in proviso to

Rule 273 which clearly goes to show that a person should be

engaged by the department in any manner for grant of bonus

marks by the respondents but not on "job basis".

Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to

refute the submissions made by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the petitioner had actually performed the work of

Data Entry Operator, but on "job basis". Learned counsel,

therefore, submits that since the petitioner is not meeting with the

conditions mentioned in the advertisement as well as the Rule 273

of the Rules of 1996, he is not entitled to get the bonus marks for

the experience certificate dated 14.08.2017. He, therefore, prays

that the writ petition may be dismissed.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have

gone through the relevant record of the case.

For brevity, Rule 273 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules,

1996 is reproduced hereunder:-

[2023/RJJD/011554] (5 of 8) [CW-17084/2022]

"Rule 273. Written test.__The Committee may hold a written test for all categories of [post except drivers, Class IV and post specified in clause (iii) of sub-section 2 of the Section 89]. [The examination shall be conducted as per directions of the State Govt. (Deleted) D.E.C. will prepare the merit list on such basis:

Provided that selections for the various posts shall be made in accordance with the general directions given by the State Government from time to time in this respect. It may not be necessary to call the candidate for interview if so provided in those directions.

[Proviso Deleted] [Provided also that in case of appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk, merit shall be prepared by the Appointing Authority on the basis of such weightage as may be specified by the State Government for the marks obtained in Senior Secondary or its equivalent examination and such marks as may be specified by the State Government having regard to the length of experience exceeding one year acquired by persons engaged on the post of Junior Technical Assistant (J.T.A.) Junior Engineer, Gram Rozgar Sahayak, Data Entry Operator, Computer Operator with Machine, Lekha Sahayak, Lower Division Clerk, Co-ordinator 1EC, Coordinator Training, Coordinator Supervision, other than through placement agency, in MGNREGA or in any other scheme of the Department of the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj in the State."

The relevant and significant words in the present controversy

are "Length of Experience" and "Engaged". The proviso shows

that for appointment to the post of LDC, a person will be entitled

to such marks for the experience of the work done by him in the

category provided therein. Meaning thereby, a certain marks will

be allotted to a person on the "Length of Experience" for the

work performed by him. The emphasis is on the experience gained

by a person which can be utilized while serving the respondent as

LDC. There is a clear nexus and rationality of the same while

awarding marks in the selection process of the LDC.

In the humble opinion by this Court, the "Engagement" of

a person could be in various modes and one of the modes could be

the job work basis. The question here is that if a person has

[2023/RJJD/011554] (6 of 8) [CW-17084/2022]

acquired the requisite experience of a particular work done by

him, then it will be easily termed as a person has been engaged

for doing a particular job. The meaning of the word

"Engagement" in the proviso to Rule 273 cannot be read in

limited manner and if a person is engaged for performing a

particular job, may be through the placement agency or contract

basis or even job work, will make a person eligible to show that he

has performed a particular nature of work.

The present controversy is not related to the nature of

"Engagement" done by the petitioner at a particular point of

time. The important feature in the present case is the experience

gained by the petitioner on a particular post for which the

certificate had been issued. Therefore, this Court is of the view

that even as per Rule 273, if a person has acquired experience of

having work of a particular course even on "job basis", he will be

entitled to get the bonus marks. A bare perusal of Rule 273 clearly

goes to show that the nature of "Engagement" has not been

prescribed in the Rule, therefore, it cannot be restricted to mean

that only those persons who are employed in the respondent

department on contractual basis, will be entitled to get the benefit

of the length of experience of serving the department. Even in the

present case, the respondents have issued the certificate which is

not in dispute that the petitioner has performed the work of Data

Entry Operator on job basis and, therefore, the working

experience on a particular post is not under the shadow of doubt.

Further, this Court in the case of Mitendra Singh Rathore

& Ors. V/s State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 2013 4

RLW (Raj.) 3451 held as under: -

[2023/RJJD/011554] (7 of 8) [CW-17084/2022]

"17. The experience required under Proviso second of Rule 273 of the Rules of 1996 is on definite posts under definite schemes sponsored by the Panchayati Raj Institutions and under MGNREGA. This too is having a rational as the schemes are required to be implemented with a new vision of development and governance at the grass root level through the Panchayat Raj Institutions as per thrust of the 73rd constitutional amendment and the State enactment made in consonance thereto. The need of experience hands in service, thus, is rational and required, but the issue deserves consideration is that whether the experience earned on the posts aforesaid in the schemes concerned have any distinction on the count of different mode of employment. It is not in dispute that the main requirement of the statutory weightage is experience on certain posts in definite schemes and not the mode of employment. It is also a position accepted that the experience gained on the posts of Junior Technical Assistant (J.T.A.), Junior Engineer, Gram Rozgar Sahayak, Data Entry Operator, Computer Operator with Machine, Lekha Sahayak, Lower Division Clerk, Co-ordinator IEC, Coordinator Training and Coordinator Supervision in MGNREGA or any other scheme of Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj is same and that does not differ due to mode of employment. The persons employed directly by the Panchayati Raj Institutions or under MGNREGA or through the placement agencies working on the posts aforesaid in MGNREGA or in other schemes of Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj discharge same duties with same responsibilities and liabilities, as such, the experience gained is also same, thus, the experience gained by the persons employed through the placement agencies in no manner can be treated as less or not relevant to have necessary skill, knowledge, insight or any other merit required by Panchayati Raj and Zila Parishad Service."

Therefore, this Court is firmly of the opinion that the

experience certificate dated 14.08.2017 issued by the respondent

department is required to be taken into consideration for grant of

bonus marks to the petitioner.

In view of the discussion made above, the present writ

petition merits acceptance and the same is allowed. The

respondents are directed to consider the experience certificate

[2023/RJJD/011554] (8 of 8) [CW-17084/2022]

dated 14.08.2017 of the petitioner for having performed the work

of Data Entry Operator on "job basis" for the purpose of grant of

bonus marks. The entire exercise shall be completed by the

petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of