Ratan Lal Meena vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 7102 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:29589-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 30/2023

Gaurav Suthar S/o Shri Sunder Lal Suthar, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Bapu Bazar, Behind Police Station, Rishabhdev, District Udaipur.

----Appellant Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Additional Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Udaipur, District Udaipur.

----Respondents Connected With D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 964/2022 Anjulata Meena D/o Shri Malkhe Chand Meena, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Toksi, Teh. Gangapurcity, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan.

----Appellant Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Udaipur, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 33/2023 Ratan Lal Meena S/o Shri Bhaniya Meena, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village - Manafala, Post - Pal Nithauwa, Tehsil - Sabla, District - Dungarpur.

----Appellant Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department,

[2023:RJ-JD:29589-DB] (2 of 8) [SAW-30/2023]

Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Additional Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dungarpur, District Dungarpur.

                                                                    ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)              :    Mr. Manish Patel,
                                   Mr. Ramesh Kumar
For Respondent(s)             :    Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Judgment

13/09/2023 (Oral):

1. By this common judgment, we propose to decide present

three appeals wherein the writ petitions preferred by the

appellants claiming a direction to the respondents to treat them

eligible on the basis of qualification of graduation with 'computer

application' as one of the subjects and as a consequence thereof,

to provide them appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk

(for short, 'LDC') pursuant to the recruitment advertisement-2013,

have been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground

that the result of the graduation was declared after the cut-off

date and therefore, the appellants were not eligible on the date

which was fixed for consideration.

2. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the issue

involved in these appeals are identical and therefore, the same

may be disposed of by a common judgment.

[2023:RJ-JD:29589-DB] (3 of 8) [SAW-30/2023]

3. Briefly the facts are that the appellants applied for the post

of LDC pursuant to the recruitment advertisement-2013, whereby

4000 posts of LDC had to be filled up as per the circular dated

07.09.2022, for which purpose list of candidates was issued. The

appellants were also called for document verification, but they

were not found eligible as they did not have the requisite

qualification on or before the cut-off date i.e. 30.06.2013. It is an

admitted position that result of the appellants of graduation

degree was declared after the said cut off date.

4. It is the assertion of the counsel for the appellants that the

appellants have cleared their computer application examination

during the first and second year of their graduation and the results

of those years were declared in the year 2012, which is before the

cut-off date and therefore, they would be eligible in terms of the

advertisement issued for recruitment in 2013. In support of this

contention, counsel for the appellants have placed reliance upon

circular dated 26.09.2018 {Annnexure-3 in Anjulata Meena vs.

State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.16313/2022)}, vide which on the basis of an order passed by

this Court in Rooparam Meghwal vs. State of Rajasthan &

Ors. [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10050/2018, decided on

25.07.2018], directions to consider candidature of the candidates

for appointment to the post of LDC pursuant to advertisement

dated 14.02.2013 treating them to be having valid qualification for

computer application obtained in graduation/B.Ed. were issued.

Assertion has also been made that when the requisite candidates

with computer science/computer application qualification were not

available, an earlier circular had been issued on 11.07.2018

[2023:RJ-JD:29589-DB] (4 of 8) [SAW-30/2023]

(Annexure-2) by the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj

Department regarding qualification of Senior Secondary from a

recognised Board of School Education in the country with

computer science/computer application as one of the subject

including compulsory/optional/additional subject treated to be an

equivalent qualification. It is on the basis of these circulars that

the counsel for the appellants contend that basic qualification

required for appointment as an LDC was Senior Secondary

examination with computer science/computer application as one of

the subject up to the said level. Since the appellants have passed

their graduation with subject of computer science/computer

application in the first and second year of their graduation course

and have qualified the same in the years 2011 and 2012 which is

prior to the cut-off date i.e. 30.06.2013, they are required to be

treated eligible for appointment to the post of LDC.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants have placed reliance upon

a Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of Rajasthan &

Ors. vs. Praveen Kumar (D.B. Special Appeal (Writ)

No.241/2022, decided on 28.06.2022) where this Court had

held that in the light of the circulars dated 30.10.2017,

25.12.2017 and 11.07.2018, the aspirants, who had acquired the

educational and technical qualifications on or before 23.06.2013,

were entitled to be considered for selection in situation where the

initial technical qualification certificates presented by them were

found to be issued by the institute, which have been followed by

the technical qualification obtained from the State with the rider

that the qualification should have been acquired before

23.06.2013. Learned counsel on the basis of this judgment

[2023:RJ-JD:29589-DB] (5 of 8) [SAW-30/2023]

contend that once they have passed the technical qualification

prior to the cut-off date i.e. 26.03.2013 may be in the first year or

second year of graduation, they would be entitled to the benefit of

being treated as eligible for appointment to the said post.

Learned counsel for the appellants have prayed that the appeals

may be allowed and the impugned orders passed by learned

Single Judge may be set aside.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has

contended that as per the circular dated 11.07.2018, the said

circular only required the qualification of computer

science/computer application upto the level of Senior Secondary

school. As far as the benefit of circular dated 26.09.2018 is

concerned, which was based upon the order passed by the High

Court in Roopa Ram Meghwal's case (supra) and therefore, the

said benefit would be restricted to the candidates who fulfill the

said requirements as laid down therein, which has been accepted

by the State. In this regard, he has referred to the said circular

and has pointed out that the candidates should be a graduate or

B.Ed. and should have cleared a valid qualification of computer

application during the said course for being eligible for

appointment to the post of LDC. His contention is that on the cut-

off date, none of the appellants had the graduation degree nor

was the result declared of the 3rd year. Thus, they were not

entitled to the benefit of the said circular. Therefore, the appeals

may be dismissed by upholding the impugned orders of the

learned Single Judge.

7. We have considered the submissions made by learned

counsel for the parties and with their assistance, have gone

[2023:RJ-JD:29589-DB] (6 of 8) [SAW-30/2023]

through the pleadings in the writ petition as also the judgments on

which reliance has been placed.

8. The basic issue involved in the these cases is whether the

appellants, who are claiming to have passed their computer

application qualification in the first/second year graduation studies

and their results have been declared for these years prior to the

cut-off date i.e. 30.06.2013 would render them eligible for

appointment to the post of LDC?

9. The requirement of passing computer science/computer

application for appointment as an LDC being an essential

qualification is not in dispute, which was technical qualification

required. It is not in dispute that the appellants became eligible

for consideration for appointment to the post of LDC, if they fulfill

the mandate and requirement as were clarified and directed by

this Court in Roopa Ram Meghwal's case (supra). The directions in

the said writ petition were as follows:

"The respondents are directed to consider candidates of the petitioners for appointment on the post of LDC in pursuance of advertisement dated 14.2.2013 while treating them to be having a valid qualification of Computer Application obtained in Graduation/B.Ed. and provide them appointment on the post of LDC if they are otherwise eligible and meritorious within a period of 60 days from today."

10. A perusal of the above direction would make it abundantly

clear that the candidates who were having valid qualification of

computer application obtained in the graduation/B.Ed. would be

eligible for consideration for appointment to the post of LDC. The

required and mandated qualification of computer application

during the course of graduation would crystallise on a candidate

[2023:RJ-JD:29589-DB] (7 of 8) [SAW-30/2023]

having cleared the graduation examination. Meaning thereby, the

candidate, whose final year result has been declared prior to the

cut-off date i.e. 30.06.2013, would only be treated as eligible.

Passing of the qualification of computer application/computer

science during the course of graduation may be prior to the cut-off

date would not make a candidate eligible for consideration for

appointment to the post of LDC. A candidate cannot be treated as

eligible and qualified on account of having studied the computer

application and qualified the same before the cut-off date when

the course itself has not been completed which is required i.e.

graduation as per the order passed in Roopa Ram Meghwal's case

(supra).

11. In the light of the above, the claim as has been projected by

the appellants cannot be accepted as none of them had qualified

their graduation prior to the cut-off date as it is admitted that

their results of the final year graduation examination was declared

subsequent to the cut-off date.

12. Reliance by the counsel for the appellant upon the Division

Bench judgment of this Court in Praveen Kumar's case (supra)

would not be of any help to them for the simple reason that the

case which was the subject matter of consideration before the

court was acquisition of computer qualification from an

unrecognized institution initially but thereafter obtaining the

requisite qualification from the recognized State institute prior to

the cut-off date i.e. 23.06.2013. The Division Bench had held

there also that the cut-off date was sacrosanct and the requisite

technical qualification had to be prior to the cut-off date.

[2023:RJ-JD:29589-DB] (8 of 8) [SAW-30/2023]

13. In the present case, graduation is a three year course and it

is on completion of those three years that a course can be said to

be completed. Each year is not a different course and it is the

consolidated three year effort of the student, which leads to

obtaining graduation degree. This being the position, the prayer

of the appellants cannot be accepted.

14. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Single

Judge, being in accordance with law and on proper appreciation of

the intent and purpose of the circular dated 11.07.2018, is upheld.

15. The appeals, being devoid of merit, are dismissed

accordingly.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH),CJ

48to50-MohitTak/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)