Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dasarath Singh Champawat vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 9 May, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:22437]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9588/2025
Dasarath Singh Champawat S/o Amar Singh Champawat, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o 98 Rawla Bas, Gram Barwa, Post Ghana,
Tehsil Ahor, District Jalor, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary,
Department Of Education, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The District Education Officer, (Headquarter) Secondary
Education, Pali.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Bhawla.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vaibhav Bang for
Mr. N.K. Mehta, Dy. G.C.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
09/05/2025
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. N. K. Mehta, 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
[2025:RJ-JD:22437] (2 of 3) [CW-9588/2025]
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 (07 September, 2013) but shall
[2025:RJ-JD:22437] (3 of 3) [CW-9588/2025]
nevertheless give actual increments after 19 August, 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.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
266-Shahenshah/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
