Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Omnarayan Nanoma vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 27 May, 2025

Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:25909]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                   S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9637/2025

Nathu Lal Pargi S/o Late Shri Jivraj Pargi, Aged About 42 Years,
R/o Pargi Fala, Mukam- Dadroda, Post- Bhamai, Panchayat
Samiti- Simalwara, District- Dungarpur.
                                                                           ----Petitioner
                                        Versus
1.       The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural
         Development             And        Panchayati           Raj       Department,
         Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.       The Director, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
         Department,         Government            Of     Rajasthan,        Secretariat,
         Jaipur.
3.       Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dungarpur.
4.       Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Simalwara, District
         Dungarpur.
5.       Vikas       Adhikari,     Panchayat         Samiti          Galiyacot,   District
         Dungarpur.
                                                                       ----Respondents
                                  Connected With
                   S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9568/2025
Omnarayan Nanoma S/o Late Shri Jivram Nanoma, Aged About
24 Years, R/o Ward No. 5, Mukam Rajpur, Post Peeth, Panchayat
Samiti Simalwara, District Dungarpur.
                                                                           ----Petitioner
                                        Versus
1.       The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural
         Development             And        Panchayati           Raj       Department,
         Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.       The Director, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
         Department,         Government            Of     Rajasthan,        Secretariat,
         Jaipur.
3.       Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dungarpur.
4.       Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Simalwara, District
         Dungarpur.
                                                                       ----Respondents
                   S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9625/2025

                         (Downloaded on 27/05/2025 at 09:45:17 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:25909]                    (2 of 7)                          [CW-9637/2025]


Bapu Lal Dendor S/o Late Shri Mani Lal Dendor, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Mukam-Mithi Limdi, Post Kuwan, Panchayat Samiti
Simalwara, District Dungarpur.
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.       The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural
         Development           And       Panchayati           Raj      Department,
         Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.       The Director, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
         Department,      Government             Of    Rajasthan,       Secretariat,
         Jaipur.
3.       Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dungarpur.
4.       Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Simalwara, District
         Dungarpur.
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Ramesh Kumar Prajapat
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. I.R. Choudhary, AAG with
                                 Mr. Pawan Bhati



         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

27/05/2025

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9637/2025 :

1. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Prajapat, 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. I.R. Choudhary, 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:-

[2025:RJ-JD:25909] (3 of 7) [CW-9637/2025]

"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 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 (April 2022) but shall nevertheless

[2025:RJ-JD:25909] (4 of 7) [CW-9637/2025]

give actual increments after April, 2022 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. The stay application and all other interlocutory applications

stand disposed of accordingly. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9568/2025 :

1. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Prajapat, 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. I.R. Choudhary, 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

[2025:RJ-JD:25909] (5 of 7) [CW-9637/2025]

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 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 (September 2019) but shall

nevertheless give actual increments after September 2019 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. The stay application and all other interlocutory applications

stand disposed of accordingly.

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9625/2025 :

1. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Prajapat, learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that the issue involved in the present writ

[2025:RJ-JD:25909] (6 of 7) [CW-9637/2025]

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. I.R. Choudhary, 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 petition is also allowed with the following

directions:-

[2025:RJ-JD:25909] (7 of 7) [CW-9637/2025]

(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 (June 2017) but shall nevertheless

give actual increments after June 2017 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. The stay application and all other interlocutory applications

stand disposed of accordingly.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 319-321-SanjayS/-