Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hemant Kumar Saini vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:18431) on 15 April, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:18431]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6960/2025
Ajay Pal Singh S/o Shri Dhul Singh, Aged About 59 Years, R/o
Naharpura, District Banswara (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Director, Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan,
Bikaner.
2. District Education Officer (Secondary), Banswara (Raj.)
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6316/2025
Prathvi Raj S/o Ramswroop, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Subhash
Nagar 100 No. Railway Gate Ke Pass Nagaur, Rajasthan. At
Present Posting GSSS Ratanpura, Dist. Didwana - Kuchaman.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Education
Department Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Secondary Education Bikaner.
3. The Joint Director, Secondary Education, Ajmer,
Rajasthan.
4. The District Education Officer, (Secondary First) Education
Department, Nagaur, Rajasthan.
5. The District Education Officer, (Secondary First) Education
Department, Didwana- Kuchaman, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6644/2025
1. Hemant Kumar Saini S/o Late Shiv Narayan Saini, Aged
About 32 Years, R/O Vpo Bahtana, Tehsil Deeg, District
Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
2. Rakesh Kumar S/o Late Mahendra Singh, Aged About 46
Years, R/o Near New Durga Mandir, Sanjay Nagar, District
Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
3. Shiv Kumar S/o Late Laxman Singh, Aged About 38
Years, R/o Vpo Bahaj Thok Lakhan, Tehsil Deeg, District
(Downloaded on 16/04/2025 at 09:36:33 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18431] (2 of 4) [CW-6960/2025]
Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
4. Devki Nandan Mudgal S/o Late Sohan Lal Sharma, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o Vpo Bahtana, Tehsil Deeg, District
Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
5. Rameshwar S/o Late Brajendra Singh, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Vpo Pasopa, Tehsil Deeg, District Bharatpur,
Rajasthan.
6. Akash Kumar S/o Late Prem Singh, Aged About 28 Years,
Village Badesara, Post Mauroli, Tehsil Deeg, District
Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
4. The District Education Officer (Hqrs), Secondary
Education, Bharatpur.
5. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education,
Bharatpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lalkar Singh for
Mr. Ripudaman Singh
Mr. Tanwar Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N. K. Mehta
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
15/04/2025
1. Mr. Ripudaman Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petitions are
squarely covered by the judgment dated 17.02.2025 passed by
[2025:RJ-JD:18431] (3 of 4) [CW-6960/2025]
this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1457/2025 (Manish Vyas
Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors).
2. Mr. N. K. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents is not in
a position to dispute the aforesaid position of facts and law.
3. In the case of Manish Vyas (supra), this Court has observed
thus:-
"24. True it is, that the circular dated 19.08.2010 mentions
that a candidate has to clear type test on computer but the
subsequent circular dated 21.09.2010 which has been issued
within a period of one month of the earlier circular, makes it
clear that the stipulation made in the circular dated
19.08.2010 so far as giving 'type test of computer' is
concerned, was erroneous. If the circulars of 19.08.2010 and
21.09.2010 are read carefully, it is apparent that they make a
specific reference to the Rules of 1999, so also the notification
dated 05.07.2010 by which the Rules of 1999 came to be
amended.
25. This Court is, therefore, clearly of the view that after the
amendment was brought in the Rules of 1999 (w.e.f
05.07.2010), the requisite educational qualification for the post
of LDC is, senior secondary education and computer proficiency
as mentioned in Schedule-I and not the type test, as was
prevailing prior to 05.07.2010.
26. Petitioner has indisputably acquired computer proficiency
or RS-CIT certificate in December, 2014 and therefore, he
cannot be asked to clear type test as his appointment was
after 05.07.2010 (on 21.07.2011), more particularly, in
absence of any such condition or stipulation in his appointment
order.
27. For what has been discussed hereinabove and following the
judgment in the case of Mohhamad Umar Rangrej (supra), the
petition is allowed."
4. The present writ petitions are also allowed with the following
directions:-
(I) The respondents are directed to give due increments and all
other consequential benefits, including promotion to the
[2025:RJ-JD:18431] (4 of 4) [CW-6960/2025]
petitioners in accordance with law - as per the provisions
contained in Rule 9 of the Rules of 1996 so also the circular dated
04.05.2017.
(ii) The respondents shall obviously give notional increments to
the petitioners from the date of appointment up to the date, when
he acquired RS-CIT certificates (February, 2012, September, 2013
and April, 2013) but shall nevertheless give actual increments and
promotion if the petitioners are otherwise eligible.
(iii) The respondents are directed to pass requisite order in line
with the adjudication made hereinabove within a period of two
months from today. The arrears be paid within a period of four
months from the date of the order instant.
5. The stay application and all other interlocutory applications
stand disposed of accordingly.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
6-8-Payal/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
