Shailendra Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:19006)
2025 Latest Caselaw 11894 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 11894 Raj
Judgement Date : 17 April, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Shailendra Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:19006) on 17 April, 2025

Author: Rekha Borana

Bench: Rekha Borana

[2025:RJ-JD:19006]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7381/2025

Shailendra Singh S/o Shri Sobhran Singh, Aged About 43 Years,
R/o P.r.-8, Near Dak Banglow, Pali, District Pali.
                                                                             ----Petitioner
                                         Versus
1.       State       Of      Rajasthan,           Through             Secretary,     Rural
         Development               And       Panchayati           Raj        Department,
         Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.       The Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati
         Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3.       Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Pali, District Pali.
4.       Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Pali, District Pali.
                                                                        ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)              :     Mr. Ramesh Kumar Prajapat
For Respondent(s)              :     Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav



                 HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

17/04/2025

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

controversy in question rests covered by the judgment passed by

a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.12857/2021; Lalita Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

(decided on 21.03.2022). He submits that the petitioner would be

satisfied if the respondents are directed to decide the

representation of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgment.

2. In Lalita's case (supra), it was observed and held as under:

"The qualification as indicated in the advertisement Annex.2, which is subject matter of the present petition pertains to the qualification pertaining to the computer knowledge.

[2025:RJ-JD:19006] (2 of 3) [CW-7381/2025]

Based on the indication made in the advertisement, initially the candidature of the petitioner was rejected, however, the respondents by circular dated 11.07.2018 (Annex.5) held that those candidates having Computer Science / Computer Application as additional subject in Senior Secondary would also be eligible. Subsequently, another circular dated 26.09.2018 came to be issued based on order passed in the case of Roopa Ram Meghwal & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10050/2018, decided on 25.07.2018 holding that qualification of Computer Application obtained in Graduation / B.Ed. would be valid qualification.

Based on which, the petitioner was accorded appointment, holding him eligible pursuant to the requirement of the advertisement of the year 2013.

The determination made by the Authority by rejecting the representation of the petitioner by holding that as in the year2013, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected and the same subsequently on account of order of the Court and departmental circulars, she was accorded appointment, on that count, she was not eligible, cannot be sustained, inasmuch as, by the circulars, respondents have simply made those holding the qualification, as eligible.

It is not a case, where a fresh eligibility has been indicated for the purpose of candidates like petitioner to become qualified. Admittedly, the petitioner was holding the qualification prior to the year 2013, as the document filed by the petitioner indicates the qualification having been obtained in the year 2011 as such, the denial of notional benefits to the petitioner on the said count cannot be sustained.

Besides the above, once the other Zila Parishad has accorded the notional benefits to similarly situated candidates, as is reflected from the documents filed by the petitioner as Annex.13,there is no valid reason for the respondents to deny the same to the petitioner.

Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order dated 12.07.2021 (Annex.12) is quashed and set aside.

The respondents are directed to accord notional benefits to the petitioner on the post of LDC, as has been accorded to similarly situated candidates vide Annex.13."

3. In view of the submission made, the present writ petition is

disposed of with a direction to the competent

[2025:RJ-JD:19006] (3 of 3) [CW-7381/2025]

authority/respondents to decide the representation of the

petitioner if filed within a period of fifteen days from now. The

representation be decided within a period of six weeks thereafter

in accordance with law and keeping in view the observations made

in the case of Lalita (supra).

4. It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide the

representation has been issued only with a view to ensure

expeditious redressal of petitioner's grievance. The same may not

be construed to be an order to decide the representation in a