Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Amit Kumar Temani vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 10 July, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:29920] (1 of 3) [CW-9329/2025]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9329/2025
Amit Kumar Temani S/o Late Shri Ganesh Narayan Temani, Aged
About 34 Years, R/o Railway Station, Indira Colony, Malpura,
District Tonk (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Secretary,
Water Resources Department, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Additional Chief Engineer, Water Resources
Department, Jaipur Division, Jaipur.
3. The Superintending Engineer, Water Resources, Circle
Ajmer.
4. The Executive Engineer, Water Resource Department,
Division-I, Ajmer.
5. The Assistant Engineer, Water Resources Department,
Sub-Division Kekri, District Ajmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Bhawla.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Milap Chopra.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
10/07/2025
1. Mr. Vikram Singh Bhawla, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petition is
squarely covered by the judgment dated 17.02.2025 passed by
this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1457/2025 (Manish
Vyas Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors).
2. Mr. Milap Chopra, learned counsel for the respondents is not
in a position to dispute the aforesaid position of facts and law.
[2025:RJ-JD:29920] (2 of 3) [CW-9329/2025]
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."
[2025:RJ-JD:29920] (3 of 3) [CW-9329/2025]
4. The present writ petition is also allowed with the following
directions:-
(I) The respondents are directed to give due increments and all
other consequential benefits, including promotion to the petitioner
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 petitioner from the date of appointment up to the date, when
he acquired RS-CIT certificate (10.03.2017) but shall nevertheless
give actual increments after 02.09.2016 and promotion if the
petitioner is 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. It is made clear that the respondents shall consider the case
of the petitioner in accordance wit the judgment rendered by this
court in the case of Manish Vyas (supra) and if the petitioner
fulfills all the requisite qualifications, appropriate orders may be
passed for promotion of the petitioner. If the petitioner is not
found eligible then his case may be decided by passing a speaking
order.
6. The stay application and all other interlocutory applications
stand disposed of accordingly.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
38-Anil Singh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
