Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Tejpal Jatav S/O Shri Dhanduram vs The State Of Rajasthan on 31 January, 2019
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JAIPUR BENCH
ORDER
(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.26287/2018)
Tejpal Jatav S/o Shri Dhanduram, age about 48 years, R/o village Indrawali, Post Mathuraheda,
Tehsil Kathumar, District Alwar.
- - - Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through its principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj
Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Chief Executive Officer cum Member Secretary, Zila Parishad, Alwar.
- - - Respondents
Date of Order: January 31, 2019.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA
Mr. G.S. Gouttam, for the petitioner.
Mr. Shantanu Kumawat on behalf of
Mr. Ganesh Parihar, AAG for respondents.
BY THE COURT:
The petitioner has prayed for direction to respondents to treat his higher secondary examination equivalent to the Senior Secondary Examination for the purpose of appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk under SC Male category in District Alwar.
The facts of the case are that under the provision of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 applications were invited for 19275 posts of Lower Division Clerk (LDC). 2 The last date therefor was 22-3-2013. The criteria for selection was 70% weightage of marks in the Senior Secondary and 30 marks for three years experience i.e. 10 marks for one year, the requisite computer certification. The petitioner having passed the Higher Secondary Examination (Class XI) which at the relevant time was alleged the only school leaving one, having obtained a computer certificate from RSCIT and apparently earlier worked as Gram rozgar Sahayak at Gram Panchayat Mathuraheda in Panchayat Samiti Kathumar on contract basis in MNREGA scheme between 18-6- 2008 and 12-2-2013 i.e. 4 years 6 months and 20 days fancied himself to be eligible for the post in issue. He was however not appointed. Hence this petition unsurprisingly alleging arbitrariness against the respondents.
The defence of the respondent is that as per the operating rules and the advertisement calling applications for consideration for appointment as LDC, the minimum requisite education qualification set out was Senior Secondary or equivalent educational qualification from any recognized Board, a computer certification as detailed and the applicants with prescribed experience were entitled to bonus marks. The petitioner in his application wrongly stated to have passed the Secondary School Examination in the year 1987 with 37.38% marks, the higher Secondary Examination in the year 1989 with 37.80% marks and also claimed to have over four years relevant experience entitling him to 30 bonus marks. It has been submitted that on evaluation of his merit in the context of prescribed qualification, the petitioner was not found eligible particularly 3 as he had not passed the Senior Secondary Examination and hence was not called for document verification.
With regard to petitioner's claim for treating his higher secondary qualification equivalent to Senior Secondary it has been submitted by the respondent and rightly so that such prayer was without foundation. As per the advertisement itself the applicant was required to have passed the Senior Secondary (Class XII) and the petitioner's higher secondary qualification (Class XI) was not and could not be treated to be equivalent thereto.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
Admittedly the petitioner had only passed the higher secondary examination (class XI) in year 1989 while as per the advertisement for the post of LDC in Zila Parishad issued in the year 2013 the requisite educational qualification was Senior Secondary (Class XII). The two qualifications; the one statutorily required and the other which the petitioner possesses are distinct and incomparable. The petitioner was thus not at all eligible for the post of LDC pursuant to the advertisement in issue.
For the reasons mentioned above, there is no force in the petition. The same is dismissed.
(Alok Sharma), J.
arn/ Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)