Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ajay Bhagora vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 17 October, 2024

Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2024:RJ-JD:42264]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16531/2024

1.       Ajay Bhagora S/o Shri Ram Lal, Aged About 35 Years,
         R/o 186, Kumariyo Kheda, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur,
         Rajasthan.
2.       Rahit Patil S/o Shri Kishan Patil, Aged About 34 Years,
         R/o 10, Bheravnath Complx, Jadiyan Ki Aur, Ghantaghar,
         District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
                                                                         ----Petitioners
                                        Versus
1.       The     State     Of     Rajasthan,          Through          The   Secretary,
         Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
         (Panchayati Raj), Government Of                         Rajasthan, Jaipur,
         Rajasthan.
2.       The Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati
         Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
         Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3.       Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Udaipur, District
         Udaipur, Rajasthan.
4.       Vikas       Adhikari,     Panchayat         Samiti          Badgaon,   District
         Udaipur, Rajasthan.
                                                                       ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)             :     Mr. Puna Ram Sen
For Respondent(s)             :     Mr. Kuldeep Singh Solanki



         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

17/10/2024

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by a

judgment of this Court rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.15764/2021 "Mohan Lal Meghwal & Ors. Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors." on 08.12.2022 in the following terms:-

[2024:RJ-JD:42264] (2 of 5) [CW-16531/2024]

"This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against order dated 15.7.2021 (Annex.9), whereby the respondents while deciding the representation made by the petitioners pursuant to the direction given by this Court seeking notional benefits, has been rejected.

The petitioners applied for the post of LDC pursuant to advertisement issued by the respondents for LDC Recruitment-2013. The petitioners claimed their computer qualification other than RS-CIT in the application form and thereafter, relied on the said qualification.

When the said qualification was not taken into consideration by the respondents, the petitioners approached this Court by filing SBCWP No. 7252/2013, wherein an interim order dated 27.6.2013 was passed by this Court directing the respondents to take into consideration the fact that the petitioners completed their course with RS-CIT and respondents were directed to act accordingly.

Subsequent thereto, on account of litigation pertaining to award of bonus marks, the recruitment remained pending and ultimately after the issue got resolved by the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondents restarted the process of according appointments pursuant to Recruitment-2013. The petitioners were then accorded appointments by the respondents based on their RS-CIT qualification.

Subsequent thereto, the petitioners sought notional benefits from the year 2013, when persons lower in merit to the petitioners were accorded appointment, which was denied to the petitioners.

The petitioners again approached this Court by filing SBCWP No. 7951/2020 which came to be decided by order dated 3.9.2020 (Annex.8), requiring the respondents to decide the representation to be made by the petitioners in light of order in Satdev Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : SBCWP No. 9899/2019, decided on 25.7.2020, which in turn was based on order in Om Prakash & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.21214/2017, decided on 21.11.2017.

The respondents by their impugned order dated 15.7.2021 (Annex.9), have rejected the representation with the observations that as the petitioners were accorded appointment in the year 2017 and not in 2013, they are not entitled to grant of notional benefits.

Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that action of the respondents in denying the notional benefits to the petitioners is ex-facie incorrect, inasmuch as, similarly placed candidates have been accorded benefit by other Zila Parishads.

Reliance in this regard has been placed on order dated 14.9.2021 (Annex.10) passed by Zila Parishad, Dungarpur and order dated 30.11.2021 (Annex.20) passed by Panchayat Samiti, Khanpur, District Jhalawar. It

[2024:RJ-JD:42264] (3 of 5) [CW-16531/2024]

is submitted that as the petitioners are similarly placed, denial of the benefit to the petitioners is not justified and that even otherwise in terms of the ratio of judgment in the case of Om Prakash (supra), the petitioners are entitled to the grant of notional benefits.

A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the State, inter alia, taking the stand that as per the details of computer qualification, which was provided by the petitioners in their application form, they were not eligible and as the qualification of RS-CIT has subsequently been included by the respondents, based on which, the petitioner became eligible, they are not entitled to notional benefits as claimed and, therefore, the petition deserves dismissal.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

The respondents pursuant to the directions given by this Court to decide the representation of the petitioners, have passed a very cursory and casual order by distinguishing the order in the case of Om Prakash (supra) by indicating that the same pertained to Teacher Grade III Recruitment and that as the petitioners were accorded appointment in the year 2017, they are not entitled to notional benefits from 2013.

The determination made by the respondents, is apparently incorrect, inasmuch as, even if the judgment in the case of Om Prakash (supra) pertained to Teacher Grade III recruitment, it is not the facts of the case but the ratio of the judgment, which is applicable and binding and was relied on by the Court while passing the order in the case of Satdev (supra), which pertain to LDC Recruitment-2013 and, therefore, the rejection on the said ground is baseless.

Further the indications made that as the petitioners were appointed in the year 2017, they are not entitled to notional benefits from 2013, is also missing the basic aspect, inasmuch as, it is only when a person is appointed on a later date that he claims notional benefits for the period prior to the date of appointment and as such the reasons indicated in the order impugned cannot be sustained.

Coming to the plea raised by the respondents by indicating that as the RS-CIT qualification was not a requisite qualification and the same only became valid on account of passing of the circular dated 30.10.2017 (Annex.19) is concerned, the same appears to be factually incorrect.

A look at the circular dated 7.5.2013 (Annex.13) produced by the petitioners, inter alia, reveals the following:-

"ftu vkosndksa us vkj-,l-lh-vkbZ-Vh- izek.k i= gsrq jktLFkku ukWyst dkWjiksjs'ku fy- esa vkosnu izLrqr dj fn;k gSa ijUrq ifj.kke ?kksf"kr ugha gqvk gSa dks izksfotuy :i ls nLrkost lR;kiu gsrq cqyk fy;k tkosaA ,sls vkosndksa ls dEI;wVj ;ksX;rk laca/kh izek.k i= nLrkost lR;kiu ds le; vFkok p;u

[2024:RJ-JD:42264] (4 of 5) [CW-16531/2024]

lwph rS;kj gksus ls iwoZ rd izkIr fd;s tk ldsxsaA p;u lwph izdkf'kr gksus ds ckn mDRk vkosndksa ls dEI;wVj ;ksX;rk laca/kh izek.k i= izkIr ugh fd;s tk ldsxsaA"

The indications made that if proof of having applied to the Rajasthan Knowledge Corporation Ltd. for RS-CIT certificate is produced, the said candidates would be provisionally called for document verification and they would be required to produce their certificates at the time of document verification or prior to the preparation of the select list, which clearly establishes that the qualification from RS-CIT was duly recognized by the respondents as a valid qualification in terms of the advertisement itself way back in the year 2013.

The circular dated 30.10.2017 (Annex.19), simply relates to the cut-off date for the purpose of recognizing the qualification of RS-CIT, which has been fixed at 30.6.2013, the said circular has not made those holding the qualification of RS-CIT as qualified, as the said qualification was already valid for the purpose of seeking appointment pursuant to Recruitment-2013.

Further the interim order passed by this Court in petition filed by the petitioners, on 27.6.2013 (Annex.14) is an speaking order, wherein the aspect of RS-CIT qualification and the respondents not permitting its consideration, while passing the order requiring the respondents to take into consideration the fact that the petitioners have completed their course with RS-CIT, the respondents were directed to act accordingly, the order was passed after hearing counsel for the respondents and, therefore, the plea sought to be raised cannot be sustained on any count.

Further, the petitioners have taken a specific plea with reference to the benefit having been accorded to other similarly placed candidates by Zila Parishad, Dungarpur and Panchayat Samiti, Khanpur, District Jhalawar, to which no response has been given by the respondents and on that count also, the petitioners cannot be discriminated.

In view of the above discussion, the determination made by the respondents by the impugned order dated 15.7.2021 (Annex.9) denying the notional benefits to the petitioners, cannot be sustained, the same is, therefore, set aside.

The respondents are directed to pass fresh orders in light of what has already been discussed hereinabove.

Needful may be done within a period of four weeks from the date of this order."

2. For the self same reasons, the present writ petition is also

disposed of in terms of the order passed by this Court in the case

of Mohan Lal Meghwal (supra).

[2024:RJ-JD:42264] (5 of 5) [CW-16531/2024]

3. It is made clear that if the case of the petitioners is not

similar to the case of Mohan Lal Meghwal(supra) then the

respondents will be free to decide the case of the petitioner by

passing a speaking order.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 20-SunilS/-