Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Lakhan Kumar Makhad vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:42228) on 17 October, 2024
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:42228] (1 of 3) [CW-16950/2024]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16950/2024
Lakhan Kumar Makhad S/o Late Sh. Prabhu Ram Makhad, Aged
About 35 Years, R/o Village Makro Ka Mohallah, Riya Badi, Post
Padu Kallan Tehsil Merta, District Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj., Government
Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur.
3. Block Development Officer, Riya Badi, District Nagaur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kunal Upadhyay
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Indra Raj Choudhary, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
17/10/2024
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. Indra Raj Choudhary, AAG, 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 available on record.
[2024:RJ-JD:42228] (2 of 3) [CW-16950/2024]
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
[2024:RJ-JD:42228] (3 of 3) [CW-16950/2024]
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
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. 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.
6. Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
27-Payal/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
