Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ajay Kumar Rar vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:12276) on 5 March, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:12276]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
(1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14966/2024
1. Ram Niwas S/o Sh. Ram Kumar, Aged About 29 Years,
Resident Of Ward No. 8, Chak 4-S.m.r., Thukrana, P.o.
Thukrana, District Ganganagar (Raj.).
2. Vikram Singh Rathore S/o Sh. Idan Singh, Aged About 26
Years, Resident Of Street No. 17, Rampura Basti, Lalgarh,
Bikaner (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To The Govt.
Department Of Agriculture, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, G.b. Pant
Krishi Bhawan, Jan Path, Jaipur Through Administrator At
Jaipur.
3. General Manager (Admn), Rajasthan State Agriculture
Marketing Board, Jaipur.
4. Executive Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing
Division, Sub-Division-Second, Hanumangarh.
5. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Rajasthan State
Agriculture Management Institution Premises, Durgapura,
Jaipur Through Its Secretary At Jaipur.
6. Executive Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing
Division, Sub-Division-Third, Bikaner.
7. Ashok Godara S/o Shri Shobha Ram, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Village Borwa, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur.
8. Gulab Singh Bhati S/o Shri Dev Kishan Bhati, Aged About
30 Years, R/o Achalvanshi Colony, Jaisalmer.
----Respondents
Connected With
(2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14925/2024
Baldev Singh S/o Sh. Raju Ram, Aged About 28 Years, Resident
Of Indpalsar Hirawatan, Shri Dungargarh, District Bikaner (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To The Govt.
Department Of Agriculture Secretariat, Jaipur.
[2025:RJ-JD:12276] (2 of 13) [CW-14966/2024]
2. Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, G.b. Pant
Krishi Bhawan, Jan Path, Jaipur Through Administrator At
Jaipur.
3. General Manager (Admn), Rajasthan State Agriculture
Marketing Board, Jaipur.
4. Executive Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing
Division, Sub-Division-Second, Bikaner.
5. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Rajasthan State
Agriculture Management Institution Premises, Durgapura,
Jaipur Through Its Secretary At Jaipur.
----Respondents
(3) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15013/2024
Ajay Kumar Rar S/o Sh. Banwari Lal Rar, Aged About 27 Years,
Resident Of Ward No. 2, Rar Ki Dhani, Mudiyawas, Sikar (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To The Govt.
Department Of Agriculture, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, G.b. Pant
Krishi Bhawan, Jan Path, Jaipur Through Administrator At
Jaipur.
3. General Manager (Admn), Rajasthan State Agriculture
Marketing Board, Jaipur.
4. Executive Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing
Division, Sub-Division-Terminal Market, Jaipur.
5. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Rajasthan State
Agriculture Management Institution Premises, Durgapura,
Jaipur Through Its Secretary At Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harish Kumar Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kunal Bishnoi
Mr. Sushil Solanki
Mr. I.R. Choudhary, AAG assisted by
Mr. K.S. Solanki
Ms. Nandipna Gehlot for
Mr. Manish Patel
[2025:RJ-JD:12276] (3 of 13) [CW-14966/2024]
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Judgment
Reportable 05/03/2025
1. These writ petitions captioned above impugn different orders
dated 27.08.2024 and 28.08.2024 passed qua each of the
petitioners, whereby the earlier order dated 07.02.2024
appointing petitioners by way of transfer to the cadre of Civil
Engineer (Degree Holders) has been recalled/revoked so also
order dated 28.08.2024, whereby petitioners have been placed in
the seniority list of Junior Engineer (Civil - Diploma Holders).
2. The facts of the cases are handful. The Rajasthan Staff
Selection Board - respondent No.5 had issued an advertisement
dated 03.03.2020 notifying 59 posts for Junior Engineer (Civil -
Degree Holders) and 15 posts for Junior Engineer (Civil - Diploma
Holders).
3. The petitioners had vied for both the categories of posts for
Junior Engineer (Civil) (namely, Degree Holders and Diploma
Holders) as they were having diploma so also degree in Civil
Engineering at the time of furnishing their application form. As
luck would have it, due to paper leak, the recruitment to the post
of Junior Engineer (Civil - Degree Holders) got deferred while the
petitioners could however get their position secured in the merit
list of Junior Engineer (Civil - Diploma Holders). It is a different
matter that later on the petitioners appeared in the recruitment
process of Junior Engineer (Civil - Degree Holders) as well, but
failed to get through.
[2025:RJ-JD:12276] (4 of 13) [CW-14966/2024]
4. The petitioners were appointed on the post of Junior
Engineer (Civil - Diploma Holders) by way of order dated
30.11.2021, whereafter they were regularized as such.
5. Later on, the petitioners moved applications (petitioner No.1-
dated 03.01.2024 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14925/2024)
seeking their appointment as Junior Engineer (Civil - Degree
Holders) by asserting that they possess a degree in Civil
Engineering as well.
6. Petitioners' applications were favourably considered by the
respondents and by way of orders dated 07.02.2024, not only
petitioners' degree were entered in their service record but their
names were also added in the list of Junior Engineer (Civil -
Degree Holders) and consequently, their names were reflected at
appropriate place in the seniority list of Junior Engineer - Degree
Holders.
7. It is the case set up by the petitioners that when Rajasthan
State Agriculture Marketing Board - respondent No.2 sought
opinion from the Department of Personnel about granting benefit
of clause (d) of proviso to Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Subordinate
Engineering (Building and Roads Branch) Service Rules, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1973'), they opined that the
appointment of the petitioners as Junior Engineer (Civil - Degree
Holders) is not proper for the reasons mentioned therein. And
consequently, the orders impugned dated 27.08.2024 and
28.08.2024 came to be passed, whereby the above referred
orders dated 07.02.2024 came to be canceled/revoked.
[2025:RJ-JD:12276] (5 of 13) [CW-14966/2024]
8. Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that
the orders impugned dated 27.08.2024 and 28.08.2024 are illegal
and liable to be set aside on various counts; firstly, being contrary
to the principles of natural justice and secondly, because the same
has been done solely on the basis of opinion of the Department of
Personnel.
9. He argued that the benefit conferred upon an employee
cannot be recalled without following due process of law and
observing principles of natural justice. He also submitted that not
only the petitioners but also hundreds of employees have been
given benefit of such provision of Rules of 1973 and have been
appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil - Degree Holders) on the basis
of the degrees in Civil Engineering which they were holding even
before being appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil - Diploma
Holders).
10. Inviting Court's attention towards clause (d) of proviso to
Rule 6 of the Rules of 1973, Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the
petitioners argued that once a request to grant benefit under
clause (d) of proviso to Rule 6 of the Rules of 1973 has been
accepted and appointment has been granted, the respondents
cannot cancel the same without following due process of law.
11. He submitted that in any case if the orders impugned are
allowed to sustain, it would lead to reversion of the petitioners on
the post of Junior Engineer (Civil - Diploma Holders) and the same
will be inequitable.
12. Mr. Kunal Bishnoi and Mr. Sushil Solanki, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent - Board and private respondents
[2025:RJ-JD:12276] (6 of 13) [CW-14966/2024]
respectively opposed the submissions made by Mr. Purohit by
contending that a simple reading of clause (d) of proviso to Rule 6
of the Rules of 1973 makes it abundantly clear that the petitioners
could not have been appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil - Degree
Holders).
13. It was also contended that salary and other emoluments
which the petitioners used to get as Junior Engineer (Civil -
Diploma Holders) is equal to Junior Engineer (Civil - Degree
Holders). It was also argued that all the petitioners except Ajay
Kumar Rar had applied for both the categories of the posts, viz
Junior Engineer (Diploma Holders and Degree Holders) and since
they had failed to get through the recruitment of Junior Engineer
(Civil - Degree Holders), it would be inequitable to grant relief.
They added that if the same is done, it would be unfair to those
candidates who were selected for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil
- Degree Holders) as part of one common advertisement.
14. Mr. Bishnoi further submitted that the respondent - Board
itself has interpreted the relevant Rule and therefore, three
candidates, namely, Ajay Kumar Rar, Dinesh Kumar Sharma and
Vikram Singh Rathore have been retained as Junior Engineer (Civil
- Degree Holders), as they had acquired the degree in Civil
Engineering after being appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil -
Diploma Holders) and no order of reversion qua them have been
passed.
15. It was also argued that the petitioners will not loose their
seniority etc. on their reversion to the post of Junior Engineer
(Civil - Diploma Holders).
[2025:RJ-JD:12276] (7 of 13) [CW-14966/2024]
16. In rejoinder, Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioners
argued that if the respondents were convinced by the opinion
given by the Department of Personnel about the non-grant of
benefit of clause (d) of proviso to Rule 6 of the Rules of 1973,
they ought to have at least saved the appointment so far given
and should have applied the same prospectively and not
retrospectively, as has been done.
17. He submitted that the opinion of the Department of
Personnel is based on peculiar facts and Department of Personnel
was swayed more by the fact that when the respondent - Board
had already notified the vacancy for the post of Junior Engineer
(Civil - Degree Holders), these posts could not have been filled by
way of adopting procedure given under clause (d) of proviso to
Rule 6 of the Rules of 1973.
18. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
19. There is no gainsaying the fact that a common
advertisement dated 03.03.2020 was issued for filling up the posts
of Junior Engineer (Civil) Diploma Holders so also Degree Holders.
Admittedly, most of the petitioners did apply in both the streams
(Diploma Holders and Degree Holders) and they failed to march in
the list of selected candidates for the posts notified for Degree
Holders.
20. Before proceeding further, it would not be out of place to
keep clause (d) of proviso to Rule 6 of the Rules of 1973 handy,
for which, it is being reproduced hereinfra:-
"6. Methods of recruitment - (1) Subject to
the provisions hereinafter contained in these
[2025:RJ-JD:12276] (8 of 13) [CW-14966/2024]
rules, recruitment or appointment to posts in
the service shall be made by the method and in
the proportion as indicated in column 3 of the
Schedule:
Provided that -
(a) .......
(b) .......
(c) .......
(d) if a Diploma Holder Junior Engineer attains*
the qualification of B.E. "Civil/Electrical", or
AMIE, he shall be entitled on his application and
subject to availability of vacancy, to be
appointed as Junior Engineer (Degree Holder),
by transfer against the quota of direct
recruitment but in that case his seniority
amongst the Junior Engineers (Degree Holders)
shall be determined from the date of occurrence
of vacancy against which such Junior Engineer
has been appointed on the post of Junior
Engineer (Degree Holder) and one third of his
previous experience shall be counted as
experience on the post of Junior Engineer for the
purpose of promotion to the next higher post."
*emphasis supplied.
21. A simple look at the clause (d) of proviso to Rule 6 of the
Rules of 1973 makes it abundantly clear that the same is meant
for those Junior Engineers (Civil - Diploma Holders), who acquire
the qualification of B.E. (Civil/Mechanical/Electrical) or AMIE after
being appointed.
22. According to this Court, encadrement of a degree holder in
terms of clause (d) of proviso to Rule 6 of the Rules of 1973 is not
an appointment per-se; it is an 'appointment by way of transfer'.
[2025:RJ-JD:12276] (9 of 13) [CW-14966/2024]
It is like an absorption in the cadre of Junior Engineer (Civil -
Degree Holders).
23. The use of expression 'attains' is very significant in the
clause (d) of proviso to Rule 6 of the Rules of 1973. 'Attains' by its
very literal meaning means 'acquiring', 'obtaining' or 'getting'. The
use of tense (simple present) with the verb 'attain' also makes the
intention of the Rule Making Authority explicitly clear that such
degree or AMIE should be acquired/obtained after being appointed
as Junior Engineer (Civil - Diploma Holders).
24. Aforesaid interpretation finds support from the judgment
rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of N.C.
Dalwadi Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (1987) 3 SCC 611,
wherein it has been held that the word 'attain' means 'acquire' or
'reach'. The relevant part of the aforesaid judgment is being
reproduced hereinfra:-
"The words 'if they have not attained to the
rank' of Superintending Engineer in r. 161(1)(c)
(ii)(1) are plainly bad English and must be read
as 'if they have not attained the rank' of
Superintending Engineer. The word used in that
rule is 'rank' and not 'substantive rank' and
there is no reason why it should not be
understood according to its ordinary sense as
meaning grade or status, particularly when it is
preceded by the words 'have not attained the
rank'. The word 'attained' means acquired or
reached. The word 'rank' has both a narrower as
well as a wider meaning."
[2025:RJ-JD:12276] (10 of 13) [CW-14966/2024]
25. A person who already had both - Degree and Diploma can
well vie for the posts earmarked for Degree Holders as well as
Diploma Holders, but he cannot move rather pole vault in the
category of persons who are directly appointed as Degree Holders,
unless he acquires the degree or AMIE after his/her appointment.
A candidate who was having diploma at the time of appointment
and who acquires degree during his service alone can take benefit
of clause (d) of proviso to Rule 6 of the Rules of 1973.
26. According to this Court, if the benefit as claimed by the
petitioners are conferred upon them as done by way of orders
dated 07.02.2024, it will take away rights of unemployed youth
having degrees in their favour. Because the posts which are
otherwise meant to be filled by direct recruitment will be occupied
by them.
27. Such movement would be in essence an injustice to all those
who did B.E. (Civil/Electrical) and could not fall in the merit of
Degree Holders. If looked from another angle, it would create
anomalous situation, inasmuch as a person having failed to
compete with the degree holders, will by circuitous way move to
the stream of degree holders, which stream has better prospects
and promotional avenues. As is evident from the present facts,
where out of 8 persons 7 persons had failed to get through the
recruitment process meant for the degree holders and could
manage to secure their place qua the posts reserved for Diploma
Holders, despite having degrees in their possession by incorrect
application or interpretation of the relevant Rules.
28. So far as argument of Mr. Purohit that the respondents have
not followed due process of law or have not taken proceedings as
[2025:RJ-JD:12276] (11 of 13) [CW-14966/2024]
envisaged under service law is concerned, according to this Court
no fault can be found in the action of the respondents.
29. Petitioners' claim of infraction of principles of natural justice
is also not tenable. A person claiming breach of natural justice has
to demonstrate before the Court the prejudice which has been
caused by not providing him an opportunity of hearing. The
position of law has been settled in the case of Ashok Kumar
Sonkar Vs. Union Of India & Ors., reported in (2007) 4 SCC
54, wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that principles of
natural justice is not required to be complied with when it will lead
to an empty formality. The relevant portion whereof is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
"20. ..... The Court applies the principles of
natural justice having regard to the fact
situation obtaining in each case. It is not
applied in a vacuum without reference to the
relevant facts and circumstances of the case. It
is no unruly horse. It cannot be put in a
straightjacket formula....."
30. The facts are undisputed - the respondents ought not but
have done away with the principles of natural justice. But, in the
instant case, when the fact that the petitioners had degrees even
at the time of appointment as Junior Engineer (Civil - Diploma
Holders) is not in dispute, even if a notice were issued to the
petitioners, they hardly had any plausible defense.
31. That apart on account of reversion, the petitioners have not
been put to any disadvantageous position. Neither their
designation has been changed nor has their salary been reduced.
As no civil wrong has been meted out, even it if is held that the
orders impugned are contrary to principle of natural justice,
[2025:RJ-JD:12276] (12 of 13) [CW-14966/2024]
setting aside the orders with a liberty to pass fresh order would be
an exercise in futality.
32. This Court is not much convinced with the argument of Mr.
Purohit that since 2017 at least 20 candidates despite having
degrees on the date of appointment had been given appointment
as Junior Engineer (Civil - Degree Holders) in terms of clause (d)
of proviso to Rule 6 of the Rules of 1973.
33. Clause (d) of proviso to Rule 6 of the Rules of 1973 seems to
have been inserted with an avowed object. The Rules were framed
back in the year 1973, when engineering colleges or the colleges
granting degrees in engineering were a few while the demand for
qualified engineers was large. There were people who were less
fortunate or had no means to get admission in those engineering
colleges because of the economic or geographical compulsions.
And that is perhaps why the persons, holding diploma, were
allowed to join the engineering services in order to fill the yawning
gap between the demand and supply. However, in a bid to clothe
them with the requisite qualification and encourage expertise and
higher qualification, they were given a chance to acquire AMIE to
make their qualification equivalent to engineering degree. And
then, while continuing them in service, a window is provided to
them to slide into the stream of Degree Holders. With that idea in
mind, clause (d) of proviso to Rule 6 of the Rules of 1973 was
incorporated so that all those candidates who could not acquire
engineering degrees, can subsequently acquire additional
qualification to match the degree in Engineering (which is or which
[2025:RJ-JD:12276] (13 of 13) [CW-14966/2024]
was considered to be a prerequisite qualification) and get in the
mainstream of engineers.
34. According to this Court, this provision has lost both its
efficacy and utility - as engineering colleges are in abundance and
the number of candidates holding degrees is overwhelming. No
doubt it is imperative for the Government being a model employer
to provide employment opportunities to those less fortunate, who
are unable to secure sufficient marks and means to get into the
engineering colleges, but then, permitting the candidates who are
holding degrees and diploma to contest against the posts for
Diploma Holders despite having degrees and then allowing them
to take advantage of clause (d) of proviso to Rule 6 of the Rules of
1973 is not only impermissible in law but also against the express
provision and legislative intent. Such action cannot be
countenanced. The respondents have rightly canceled petitioners'
absorption.
35. With the spirit of ex-debito justitiae, this Court feels that "it
is better to be right some day rather than continuing with the
wrong in perpetuation".
36. As an upshot of discussion foregoing, this Court hardly finds
any merit and substance in petitioners' contentions. All these writ
petitions thus, fail.
37. The stay applications also stand dismissed, accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
31-33-akansha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
