Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shankara Ram Chouhan vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 29 November, 2023
Bench: Arun Bhansali, Rajendra Prakash Soni
[2023:RJ-JD:41056-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 381/2023
Shankara Ram Chouhan S/o Shri Neemba Ram Chouhan, Aged
About 43 Years, Caste Meghwal (Sc), R/o Purohiton Ki Basti,
Gram Panchayat Mundon Ki Dhani, District Barmer, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Additional
Commissioner Cum Dy. Secretary, Rural Development
And Panchayatiraj Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. The Zila Parishad Barmer, Through Its Chief Executive
Officer.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Barmer,
Rajasthan.
4. The Zila Parishad Jaisalmer, Through Its Chief Executive
Officer.
5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jaisalmer,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. S.P. Sharma.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI
Judgment
29/11/2023
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.1.2023
passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15620/2022, wherein, the
writ petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
2. The appellant - petitioner filed the writ petition inter alia
seeking direction to the respondents to consider the candidature
of the petitioner for appointment on the post of LDC by awarding
[2023:RJ-JD:41056-DB] (2 of 5) [SAW-381/2023]
him 30 bonus marks for experience as Junior Engineer based on
experience certificate dated 5.6.2007 and permit correction in his
application form, in case, after award of the said bonus marks, he
falls in merit.
3. It was inter alia indicated that pursuant to the advertisement
for the post of LDC issued in the year 2013, the petitioner applied
and for the purpose of bonus marks, the petitioner relied on a
certificate dated 21.3.2013 (Annex.4) with the writ petition,
wherein, he had worked as Junior Technical Assistant for a period
of 2 years 1 month & 8 days. Based on the said certificate, the
petitioner was awarded 20 bonus marks and he failed to cross the
cut-off meant for his category. In the writ petition, the petitioner
annexed a certificate dated 05.06.2007 issued by Panchayat
Samiti, Sheo, Barmer inter alia indicating that he had worked for
3 years from 2005 to 2007 on the post of Junior Engineer.
4. The plea raised in the petition was that as the respondents
had included the post of Junior Engineer for those eligible for
award of bonus marks by circular dated 21.04.2017, the petitioner
should have been permitted to seek benefit of the experience as
having worked as Junior Engineer and, in case the said experience
is taken into consideration, the petitioner would be entitled to 30
bonus marks and would be having marks higher than the cut-off.
5. The respondents filed reply to the petition inter alia
questioning the claim of the petitioner on two grounds; (1) the
petitioner cannot rely on an experience certificate, which
experience was not claimed in the application form and (2) even if
the said certificate was to be taken into consideration, as the
petitioner had not worked under any of the schemes of the
[2023:RJ-JD:41056-DB] (3 of 5) [SAW-381/2023]
Panchayati Raj Department, he was not entitled to award of bonus
marks.
6. Learned Single Judge, after considering the plea raised by
the petitioner regarding inclusion of the post of Junior Engineer by
circular dated 21.04.2017, came to the conclusion that as the said
experience on the post of Junior Engineer was not indicated in the
application form, the petitioner was not entitled for getting the
same considered for award of bonus marks.
7. Further, it was held that as the certificate does not make
reference of any of the schemes of the Government, which is a
pre-requisite for award of bonus marks, even otherwise the
petitioner was not entitled and rejected the writ petition.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant with reference to the
document filed along with application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC
made submissions that the said certificate clearly indicates that
petitioner had worked under the scheme and as such he was
entitled for claiming the bonus marks and, therefore, rejection of
petitioner's claim by the respondents is not justified.
9. We have considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the appellant and have perused the material available
on record.
10. The foundational plea raised by the petitioner in the petition
was that as the post of Junior Engineer was included by the State
Government by issuing circular dated 21.04.2017 (Annex-8 of the
writ petition), the fact that the petitioner did not claim benefit of
bonus marks based on the said experience as Junior Engineer in
the application, cannot be countenanced and it is only after the
[2023:RJ-JD:41056-DB] (4 of 5) [SAW-381/2023]
said circular issued by the respondents, the petitioner could have
claim the said benefit.
11. Apparently, the plea raised by the petitioner is factually
incorrect. The award of bonus marks for the post of LDC is
governed by provisions of Rule 273 of the Rajasthan Panchayati
Raj Rules, 1996, wherein the proviso as introduced vide
notification dated 29.01.2013 inter alia 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-ordinate IEC,
Coordinator Training, Coordinator Supervision, other
than through placement agency, in MGREGA or in any
other scheme of the Department of Rural Development
and Panchayati Raj in the State."
12. The advertisement in question filed with the writ petition at
page-43 dealing with the award of bonus marks, has clearly
indicated the post of Junior Engineer as well. As such, the plea
raised regarding the post of Junior Engineer having been included
by circular dated 21.04.2017 being factually incorrect, the
petitioner can not claim any benefit based on the plea, as raised.
13. Admittedly, the petitioner was in possession of the
experience certificate of having worked as Junior Engineer as well
as Junior Technical Assistant and for reasons best known to the
[2023:RJ-JD:41056-DB] (5 of 5) [SAW-381/2023]
petitioner, he chose to take benefit of his experience as having
worked as Junior Technical Assistant, which period was 2 years 1
month & 8 days, based on which, he was awarded 20 bonus
marks, the plea, therefore, essentially was that the petitioner
should be permitted to seek benefit of experience of his certificate
which was already available with the petitioner on the date of
application / last date of application, which he chose not to claim.
Such change in the application and / or consideration of
petitioner's candidature based on an experience which was not
claimed in the application form, cannot be countenanced.
14. The plea raised regarding the petitioner having worked under
the scheme or not did not arise at all as the said experience of
Junior Engineer, which the petitioner could have claimed in his
application form, was never claimed by him.
15. In view of the above fact situation, though for different
reasons, no case is made out for interference in the order dated
24.01.2023 passed by learned Single Judge. The appeal has no
substance. The same is, therefore, dismissed.
(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J (ARUN BHANSALI),J
49-Sumit/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
