Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mohhamad Umer Rangrej vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors on 4 April, 2019
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ No. 10333/2017
Mohhamad Umer Rangrej S/o Late Azij Mohhamad Rangrej, B/c
Muslim, R/o New Aabadi, Ward No. 12, Shahpura, District
Bhilwara Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Department
Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj., Government
Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Zila Parishad, Bhilwara Through Its Chief Executive
Officer.
3. Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Shahpura, District
Bhilwara.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ No. 10166/2017
Ramesh Chandra Regar S/o Shri Ram Ratan Regar, By Caste
Regar, R/o Village Post Fuliya Kalan, Tehsil Shahpura, District
Bhilwara Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Department
Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Government
Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Zila Parishad, Bhilwara Through Its Chief Executive
Officer.
3. Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Shahpura, District
Bhilwara.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.S. Bhaleria
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order 04/04/2019 These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the action of the respondents in stopping the (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:25:26 PM) (2 of 4) [CW-10333/2017] annual grade increments and not considering the case for promotion on account of the remarks indicated in the seniority list.
It is inter alia indicated that the petitioners were granted compassionate appointments by order dated 17.06.2011 and 12.07.2011 by Zila Parishad, Bhilwara on post of LDC.
The order of appointing inter alia contained the following condition:
"7. p;fur vH;FkhZ dks fu;qfDr ds 01 o"kZ esa ekU;rk izkIr laLFkk ls dEI;wVj n{krk izek.k i= izkIr tkuk vko';d gksxk] rnqijkUr gh jktdh; lsok esa LFkk;h@fu;fer fd;s tkus ds ;ksX; gksxkA "
The petitioners produced certificate from Vardhaman Mahaveer Open University, Kota regarding their having obtained RS-CIT on 04.09.2012. Thereafter, they were confirmed in service by order dated 26.08.2013 and 01.08.2013 respectively by the Panchayat Samiti.
However, in the year 2016, a remark was put in the service book indicating that as the petitioners have not passed the type test, their annual increment has been withheld. Further, in the seniority list issued by the respondents, remark was put therein also that petitioners have not passed their type test.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that action of the respondents in requiring the petitioners to pass the type test is ex- facie erroneous inasmuch as the stipulation in the appointment order was specific regarding obtaining certificate pertaining to computer efficiency which was complied with by the petitioners. However, the requirement of the respondents from the petitioners to pass the type test is baseless and therefore the action of the respondents in this regard deserves to be quashed and set aside.
(Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:25:26 PM)
(3 of 4) [CW-10333/2017] Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the qualification indicated in the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 ( 'the Rules' ) requires the candidates to have typing speed of 20- 25 words per minute in Hindi and English typing, respectively and therefore, the respondents were justified in seeking compliance with the said requirement from the petitioners and as admittedly, the petitioners have not passed the requisite type test, they were not entitled for grant of requisite annual increment/promotion.
Further submissions were made that amendment in the Rule 266 of the Rules has been made w.e.f. 18.12.2012, as the appointment was made on 17.06.2011 and the said amendment being not retrospective, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
A perusal of the order of appointment dated 17.06.2011 and 12.07.2011 indicate that a specific stipulation has been made in the order requiring the petitioners to obtain computer efficiency certificate and the order nowhere requires the petitioners to pass requisite type test.
Based on the said stipulation, once the petitioners have complied with the requirements and produced the requisite certificates within the time granted, after 05 years the respondents cannot require the petitioners to obtain a different qualification i.e. of having passed the type test.
Besides the fact that no stipulation has been indicated in the order of appointment, it is not the case of the respondents that the respondent department at any point of time held any type test where the petitioners failed to appear and/ or could not clear the (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:25:26 PM) (4 of 4) [CW-10333/2017] same. Once, the respondents themselves have failed to hold any kind of type test, action of the respondents requiring the petitioners to obtain the requisite qualification cannot be sustained.
Further, the amendment made in the Rules requiring the candidates to have computer efficiency certificate is reflective of the changing times, as there is hardly any department where typewriters are in use and/ or available for being used and, therefore, on that count also requirement now sought to be implemented/imposed after not indicating the same in the order of appointment, cannot be sustained.
In view of the above discussion, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed. The action of the respondents in denying annual grade increments to the petitioners and/ or not considering them for promotion, if, otherwise eligible, cannot be sustained and therefore set aside.
The petitioners would be entitled to grant of annual grade increments from the date they were entitled to the same and arrears in this regard would be paid to them. Further, in case the petitioners are eligible for promotion/were eligible for promotion, their cases would also considered in this regard.
The needful be done by the respondents within a period of four weeks.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J 172-Arvind/-
(Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:25:26 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)