Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Lokesh Kumar Dhanki vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 1 May, 2023
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2023/RJJD/012728]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1774/2023
Lokesh Kumar Dhanki S/o Shri Raman Lal Dhanki, Aged About
33 Years, R/o Nayak Bazaar, Tanda-Ratna, Tanda Mangla, District
Banswara, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through the Secretary, Rural
Development and Panchayati Raj Department,
Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Banswara, District
Banswara, Rajasthan.
3. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Sajjangarh,
District Banswara, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Patel
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
01/05/2023
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. Mr. K.K. Bissa, learned counsel for the respondents is not in a
position to dispute the aforesaid position of facts and law.
3. 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
[2023/RJJD/012728] (2 of 3) [CW-1774/2023]
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 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."
4. In view of the assertion made by learned counsel for the
petitioner, the present writ petition is allowed in terms of
[2023/RJJD/012728] (3 of 3) [CW-1774/2023]
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.
5. Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
60-Shahenshah/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
