Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

State Of Rajasthan vs Ramdev Mali (2025:Rj-Jd:22292-Db) on 8 May, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:22292-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                    D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 182/2025

1.        State of Rajasthan, through the Principal Secretary,
          Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj
          (Panchayati      Raj),     Government            of       Rajasthan,   Jaipur,
          Rajasthan.
2.        Additional     Commissioner,             Rural        Development        and
          Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan,
          Jaipur.
3.        Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Barmer, Rajasthan.
4.        Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
5.        The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Bhinai,
          Zila Parishad, Ajmer.
                                                                        ----Appellants
                                       Versus
Ramdev Mali son of Mangala Ram, aged about 39 years, resident
of Malimohalla, Bhairu Bazar, Bhinai, Tehsil Bhinai, District Ajmer
(Raj.).
                                                                       ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. I.R. Choudhary, AAG assisted by
                                   Mr. Pawan Bharti, Advocate
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Pawan Singh, Advocate



      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA

Order

08/05/2025

This Special Appeal was got marked by Mr. Pawan Singh, the

learned counsel for the respondent and, therefore, taken up for

hearing before the recess.

2. An application (I.A. No.01/2024) under section 5 of the

Limitation Act 1963 has been filed seeking condonation of 624

days' delay in filing the present Special Appeal.

[2025:RJ-JD:22292-DB] (2 of 6) [SAW-182/2025]

3. On a glance at the statements made in paragraph nos.2 to 5,

we observe that the explanation offered by the appellants is not

satisfactory.

4. However, we have glanced through the order passed by the

writ Court with a view to satisfy ourselves whether the appellants

would suffer irreparable loss if the delay in filing this Special

Appeal is not condoned. We have glanced through the order

passed by the writ Court also to find out whether there is any

merit in the present Special Appeal.

5. This Special Appeal is directed against the order dated

17th October 2022 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.13696 of 2022.

6. In the present case, the writ Court held as under:

"...Learned counsel for the respondent though does not dispute the fact that the subject-matter of the petition is Sumer Singh (supra) was similar to that of the present case and that after dismissal of the SLP, the State has taken a decision not to file review in the case of Sumer Singh (supra), wherein, the petitioners were working as Sahayak Karamchari in MGNREGA Scheme i.e. similar post where the petitioner was working, however, reliance has been placed on order in Giresh Dindor v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12914/2021, decided on 4.4.2022, wherein, after considering the provisions of Rule 273 of the Rules, 1996 & the advertisement as noticed therein, the Court came to the conclusion that position of petitioner being Class-IV employee could not be compared to any of the positions as indicated in the Rules and as such, the petitioner was not entitled for the benefit of bonus marks.

A perusal of the order in the case of Giresh Dindor (supra) would reveal that the order of the Division Bench in the case of Sumer Singh (supra) was not cited.

The reliance placed on the amendment in Rule 273 by notification dated 4.10.2013 (Annex.13) is misplaced as the same pertains to case of appointment to the post of Class-IV and not Lower Division Clerk.

In view of the above fact situation, as the status of the petitioner is similar to that of petitioners in the case of Sumer Singh (supra), the petitioner is entitled to similar treatment as accorded to / to be accorded to said petitioners in the case of Sumer Singh (supra).

Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of. The respondents are directed to issue certificate

[2025:RJ-JD:22292-DB] (3 of 6) [SAW-182/2025]

indicating the experience of the petitioner as Assistant Employee under the MGNREGA Scheme and to accord similar treatment as accorded / to be accorded to Sumer Singh & Ors. (supra).

The certificate be issued to the petitioner within a period of ten days from the date a copy of this order is placed by the petitioner within the respondents..."

7. The respondent pleaded before the writ Court that he

possessed qualification of Senior Secondary and RS-CIT from the

Vardhman Mahaveer Open University Kota. He was appointed as

Assistant Employee at Gram Panchayat Samiti Bhinay in the

district of Ajmer vide order dated 07 th June 2009. While working

as Assistant Employee, he submitted online application for the

post of LDC on 16th April 2013 for district Barmer. He further

pleaded that the appointment to the post of LDC was to be made

as per the instructions issued on 12 th February 2013. Clause 6 of

the instructions dated 12th February 2013 provided that 10 bonus

marks shall be awarded for each year of work experience as

contractual employee and up to 30 marks for three years. The

respondent produced a copy of the experience certificate dated

24th August 2022 under which it was certified that he was working

since 09th January 2009 on the post of Assistant Employee.

Therefore, he had experience of 4 years and 21 days till the last

date of submitting application, that is, as on 15 th April 2013.

However, a dispute arose as to entitlement of the respondent to

claim bonus marks as he was working as Assistant Employee and

the Chief Executive Officer of the Zila Parisha Ajmer had therefore

refused to countersign the experience certificate dated 24 th August

2022. Constraint, he came to this Court in S. B. Civil Writ Petition

No.6405/2013 and an interim order was passed in his favour. The

respondent relied on an order issued on 01 st June 2006 by the

[2025:RJ-JD:22292-DB] (4 of 6) [SAW-182/2025]

Rural Development Department under which the post of Assistant

Employee was sanctioned. He also relied on the Notification dated

17th December 2012 under which the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj

(Second Amendment) Rules 2012 came into force and a proviso

was inserted in the Rules. The said proviso to Rule 273 provided

that bonus marks shall be awarded for experience of more than

one year as Junior Technical Assistant (JTA), Junior Engineer Gram

Rozgar Sahayak, Data Entry Operator, Computer Operator with

Machine (engaged other than placement agencies), Lekha

Sahayak, Lower Division Clerk, Coordinator IEC, Coordinator

Training, Coordinator Supervision in MGNREGA or any post under

any scheme of the Department of Rural Development and

Panchayati Raj. On 04th October 2013, fifth amendment in the

Panchayati Raj Rules was made. By this amendment, the fourth

grade employees who were working under MGNREGA scheme as

Assistant (Assistant Employee) were also entitled to claim bonus

marks.

8. Mr. I.R. Choudhary, the learned Additional Advocate General,

however, refers to the decision in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12914

of 2021 titled as "Giresh Dindor vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors." to

submit that the decision of the learned Single Judge rendered in

the case of "Giresh Dindor" (supra) has now attained finality as

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.366 of 2022 has been dismissed by a

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

9. On this issue, we observe that the learned Single Judge while

deciding the writ petition in the present case bestowed due

consideration to the decision in "Giresh Dindor" (supra) and

observed that the decision in the case of "Sumer Singh" (supra)

[2025:RJ-JD:22292-DB] (5 of 6) [SAW-182/2025]

was not brought to the notice of the writ Court when S.B. Civil

Writ Petition No.12914 of 2021 came to be dismissed. We shall

also indicate that the Special Appeal preferred by "Giresh Dindor"

was dismissed without hearing him as no one appeared on his

behalf even in the second round when the said Special Appeal was

called out for hearing.

10. In the order dated 17th October 2022, the writ Court has

referred to the decision rendered by the Division Bench in D.B.

Civil Writ Petition No.6005 of 2013 with connected matters titled

"Sumer Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.". We see that

this is not in dispute that the decision in the case of "Sumer

Singh" (supra) attained finality after the Special Leave Petition

filed by the State of Rajasthan vide Special Leave Petition (Civil)

Diary No.14536 of 2021 was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court. This is also recorded in the order dated 17 th October 2022,

a copy of which is tendered by the learned counsel of the

respondent, that the Department took a decision in its meeting

held on 6th July 2022 as reflected in the communication dated 15 th