Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hansraj Singh Shekhawat vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 30 January, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2023/RJJD/002828]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13431/2022
Hansraj Singh Shekhawat S/o Bhanwar Singh Shekhawat, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o Ward No. 3, Dantaur, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj., Government
Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Zila Parishad, Bikaner, Through Its Chief Executive
Officer.
3. Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Khajuwala, District
Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shivatma Kumar Tank through
V.C.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa with
Mr. G.S. Chouhan
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
30/01/2023
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue
involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered in
petitioner's favour by the judgment dated 04.04.2019, passed by
this Court in Mohhamad Umer Rangrej Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10333/2017.
2. Even after multiple opportunities being granted for filing
reply, the same has not been done so far.
3. Mr. K.K. Bissa, learned counsel for the respondents is not in
a position to dispute the aforesaid position of facts and law.
[2023/RJJD/002828] (2 of 4) [CW-13431/2022]
4. In Mohhamad Umer Rangrej's case, this Court has held as
under:-
"I have considered the submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
A perusal of the order of appointment dated
17.06.2011 and 12.07.2011 indicate that a specific
stipulation has been made in the order requiring
the petitioners to obtain computer efficiency
certificate and the order nowhere requires the
petitioners to pass requisite type test.
Based on the said stipulation, once the
petitioners have complied with the requirements
and produced the requisite certificates within the
time granted, after 05 years the
respondents cannot require the petitioners to
obtain a different qualification i.e. of having
passed the type test.
Besides the fact that no stipulation has been
indicated in the order of appointment, it is not the
case of the respondents that the respondent
department at any point of time held any type test
where the petitioners failed to appear and/ or
could not clear the same. Once, the respondents
themselves have failed to hold any
kind of type test, action of the respondents
requiring the petitioners to obtain the requisite
qualification cannot be sustained.
Further, the amendment made in the Rules
requiring the candidates to have computer
efficiency certificate is reflective of the changing
times, as there is hardly any department where
typewriters are in use and/ or available for being
used and, therefore, on that count also
[2023/RJJD/002828] (3 of 4) [CW-13431/2022]
requirement now sought to be
implemented/imposed after not indicating the
same in the order of appointment, cannot be
sustained.
In view of the above discussion, the writ
petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed. The
action of the respondents in denying annual grade
increments to the petitioners and/ or not
considering them for promotion, if, otherwise
eligible, cannot be sustained and therefore set
aside.
The petitioners would be entitled to grant of
annual grade increments from the date they were
entitled to the same and arrears in this regard
would be paid to them. Further, in case the
petitioners are eligible for promotion/were eligible
for promotion, their cases would also considered in
this regard.
The needful be done by the respondents within
a period of four weeks."
5. In view of the assertion made by learned counsel for the
petitioner, the present writ petition is allowed in terms of
Mohhamad Umer Rangrej (supra) and the petitioner is also held
entitled for grant of annual grade increment from the date he was
entitled for the same (ignoring the requirement of clearing Type
Test). Arrears be paid within a period of eight weeks from today
and in case the petitioner is eligible for promotion, his case be
considered, in accordance with law.
6. Since, the reply has not been filed, the respondent-State will
be free to move an application for modification/recalling of the
order within a period of six weeks, in case the facts asserted by
the petitioner are found to be incorrect.
[2023/RJJD/002828] (4 of 4) [CW-13431/2022]
7. Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
14-Ramesh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
