Giriraj Gujrati vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 1683 Raj

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR


                     D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 9/2023

Giriraj Gujrati son of Late Shri Ramchandra Gujrati, aged about
38 years, resident of Shri Charbhuja Nikunj, Gali No. 2, Aadrash
Nagar, Kota Road, Bhilwara, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                      Versus

1. State    of      Rajasthan,       through        the      Principal   Secretary,
    Department       of   Rural      Development           and    Panchayati   Raj
    (Panchayati Raj), Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
3. District Collector, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
                                                                  ----Respondents



For Petitioner(s)           :    Mr. S.R. Paliwal
For Respondent(s)           :    Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG


           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

                                JUDGMENT


RESERVED ON                              :::              10/01/2023

PRONOUNCED ON                            :::              13/02/2023

BY THE COURT: (PER HON'BLE MATHUR, J.)

The instant intra court appeal is preferred by the appellant-

writ petitioner for assailing the order dated 22.12.2022 passed by

the learned Single Bench whereby, the writ petition seeking a

direction upon the respondents to consider the experience

certificate issued by Social Justice and Empowerment Department

in favour of the appellant-writ petitioner for grant of bonus marks

(2 of 7) [SAW-9/2023]

against the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) pursuant to the

advertisement dated 16.02.2013, was dismissed.

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant-writ

petitioner was appointed as Computer Operator on daily-wages

basis by placement agency (Madhu Advertiser's) on contract basis

w.e.f. 01.10.2019 in the office of Assistant Director, Social Justice

and Empowerment Department, Bhilwara. By an order dated

02.10.2010, twenty nine activities/schemes of various

departments including Social Justice and Empowerment

Department were transferred to the Department of Rural

Development and Panchayati, Government of Rajasthan with

functionaries and funds for their effective implementation, in light

of 73rd Amendment to the Constitution of India. The case set up by

the appellant is that in furtherance of order dated 02.10.2010, he

was directed to work under direct supervision of the officials of

Panchayati Raj Department for implementation of the schemes

transferred from Social Justice and Empowerment Department. An

advertisement dated 16.02.2013 was issued for LDC Recruitment,

2013 wherein a computer operator working with Panchayati Raj

Department having experience of more than one year was held

entitled for bonus marks seeking appointment on the advertised

post. The appellant-writ petitioner submitted the application form

and claimed bonus marks for the experience gained by him while

working as Computer Operator through placement agency in the

respondent-department. The recruiting agency denied bonus

marks to the appellant on the count that he was not appointed by

(3 of 7) [SAW-9/2023]

Panchayati Raj Department either directly or through placement

agency in any of its activities/schemes.

The learned Single Bench by the impugned order dated

22.12.2022 dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner

claiming bonus marks for the experience gained by him holding

that he had not worked under MGNREGA or any other schmes of

Panchayati Raj Department and therefore, he was not entitled for

bonus marks while seeking appointment on the post of LDC, in

furtherance of the advertisement dated 16.02.2013. The order

dated 22.12.2022 is assailed in this intra court appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that

though the appellant was appointed as Computer Operator

through placement agency in Department of Social Justice

Empowerment, however after issuance of order dated 02.10.2010,

various activities/schemes of Social Justice and Empowerment

Department were transferred to Panchayati Raj Department with

functionaries and funds, the appellant had worked only under the

schemes transferred to Panchayati Raj Department. Learned

counsel drew the Court's attention towards various office orders

including office order dated 24.03.2011 to substantiate the fact

that the appellant-writ petitioner had worked under various

activities/schemes of Social Justice and Empowerment

Department transferred to Panchayati Raj Department, while

working under direct control and supervision of the authorities of

Panchayati Raj Department. Lastly, it was submitted that the

purpose of bonus marks/extra marks in any recruitment process is

to have inclusion of experienced persons while drawing merit

(4 of 7) [SAW-9/2023]

list/select list without compromising knowledge, skill, exposure,

concept of task given and procedural knowledge. It would thus be

unjust if the appellant-writ petitioner is deprived of bonus marks

for the experience gained against his working in the schemes of

Social Jsutice and Empowerment Department transferred to

Panchayati Raj Department. It was thus submitted that impugned

order dated 22.12.2022 passed by learned Single Bench is

unsustainable in the eyes of law.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted

that the experience certificate for working as Computer Operator

on contractual basis, was issued to the appellant by the Social

Justice and Empowerment Department which is indicative of the

fact that the appellant was not appointed by Panchayati Raj

Department directly or through placement agency. Learned

counsel for the respondents submitted that since appellant had

not worked under MGNREGA or any other scheme of the

Panchayati Raj Department, he was not entitled for bonus marks

for the experience, he has gained. Lastly, it was submitted that

the experience certificate and other documents relied upon by the

appellant do not refer to any scheme which was transferred to

Panchayati Raj Department from Department of Social Justice and

Empowerment. He thus urged that the view taken by the learned

Single Bench dismissing the writ petition by the impugned order

dated 22.12.2022 does not warrant any interference by this Court

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the

submissions advanced at bar and, have carefully perused the

impugned order and the documents placed on record.

(5 of 7) [SAW-9/2023]

Second proviso to Rule 273 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj

Rules, 1996, introduced by Government of Rajasthnan, vide

notification dated 29.01.2013, reads as under:-

"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 IEC, Coordinator Training, Coordinator Supervision, other than through placement agency, in MGREGA or in any other scheme of the Department of Rural Developmentand Panchayati Raj in the State."

The word 'experience' as defined by Merriam Webster

Dictionary reads as follows:-

"practical knowledge, skill, or practice derived from direct observation of or participation in events or in a particular activity"

The object of providing bonus marks in recruitment process

is to place candidates having sufficient experience of working in

connection with the Panchayati Raj Department on contractual/ad-

hoc basis in an advantageous position in the recruitment process

so as to have skilled, focussed and disciplined candidates suitable

for the post, while acknowledging services rendered by them in

the activities/schemes of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj

Department.

It is not in dispute before us that the controversy with regard

to entitlement for bonus marks to a person having worked through

placement agency has already been set to rest by a co-ordinate

Bench of this Court in the case of Mitendra Singh Rathore &

(6 of 7) [SAW-9/2023]

Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. C.W.P. No.1723/2013),

decided on 30.07.2013, observing that weightage/bonus marks

against the experience is also required to be extended to the

persons employed through the placement agencies.

It is also not in dispute before us that vide order dated

02.10.2010, various activities/schemes run by Social Justice and

Empowerment Department were transferred to Panchayati Raj

Department with functionaries and funds.

The objections raised by the counsel for Department of Rural

Development and Panchayati Raj were that the appellant was

neither appointed under MGNREGA nor in any other scheme of the

Panchayati Raj Department directly or through placement agency;

the salary of the appellant was paid from the funds of Social

Justice and Empowerment Department.

From the record of the case, it is apparent that after

issuance of order dated 02.10.2010, whereby various

activities/schemes of Social Justice and Empowerment

Department stood transferred to Panchayati Raj Department with

functionaries and funds, the appellant was asked to work as

Computer Operator in connection with the transferred

activities/schemes. Though, the principal employer of the

appellant was Department of Social Justice and Empowerment,

but since appellant had worked and acquired experience while

rendering services under various schemes relating to Panchayati

Raj Department, after issuance of order dated 02.10.2010, it

would be improper and unjust if this procedural aspect is allowed

(7 of 7) [SAW-9/2023]

to defeat the ends of substantial justice while making an

unreasonable classification.

The objections raised by the counsel for the respondents are

not sustainable particularly when, the petitioner had mostly

worked with Panchayati Raj Department after order dated

02.10.2010. Consequently, the impugned order dated 22.12.2022

passed by the learned Single Bench in writ petition is reversed.

In the result, the special appeal is allowed. The respondents

are directed to consider candidature of the appellant against the

post of LDC pursuant to advertisement dated 16.02.2013 by

awarding bonus marks qua experience certificate dated

04.01.2013 issued in his favour for working on the post of

Computer Operator in the transferred activities/schemes of the

Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj. It is further

directed that if petitioner falls in merit, then he shall be given

appointment from the date, persons lower in merit to him were

accorded appointment. The appellant however shall not be entitled

to any back wages.

No order as to costs.

                                    (KULDEEP MATHUR),J                                     (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
                                    Prashant









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)