Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Narayan Lal Maida vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 1 September, 2017
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR.
..
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10796 / 2017.
Narayan Lal Maida S/o Sh. Maneng Maida, Aged About 37 Years,
R/o Village Piplada, Tehsil Nayan, District Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Principal Secretary,
Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj
(Panchayati Raj), Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Deputy Secretary, Administrative Reforms (Group-3)
Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Additional Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchayati
Raj Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore.
Mr. Pawan Singh.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Patel, Govt. Counsel.
_____________________________________________________
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Judgment
01/09/2017
BY THE COURT:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.
(2 of 4) [CW-10796/2017] Issue notice.
Mr. Manish Patel, learned Government Counsel, who usually appears for the Department of Panchayati Raj, is directed to accept the notices on behalf of the respondents.
By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 01.08.2017 passed by the State Government, whereby certain directions, regarding requisite proficiency eligibility (Computer Eligibility) for the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC)-2013, have been issued to the Chief Executive Officers of all the Zila Parishads.
At the time of submitting the application form, the petitioner had relied upon a computer proficiency certificate, awarded by the C.M.J. University, Meghalaya.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner had been given appointment, pursuant to the aforesaid process, however, the same has been cancelled / withdrawn, as according to the State Government, the diploma in computer application awarded by C.M.J. University, Meghalaya is not recognized in the State of Rajasthan.
Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore & Mr. Pawan Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that subsequent thereto, the petitioner has undertaken the requisite computer qualification and a certificate of RS-CIT has been issued in his favour on 16.03.2015, for which his selection needs to be protected.
(3 of 4) [CW-10796/2017] It is not in dispute that a Division Bench of this Court, vide its judgment dated 28.03.2016 in the case of Vimla Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 137/2016 in CWP No. 9627/2013], has held that the degree awarded by the said C.M.J. University, Shillong (Meghalaya) is not recognized.
It will not be out of place to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment dated 28.03.2016 rendered by the Division Bench in the case of Vimla (supra) which reads as under:-
"Suffice it to mention that CMJ University, Shillong (Meghalaya) was established and incorporated under the CMJ University Act, 2009 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 2009'). Section 13(3)(b) of the Act of 2009 provides that the Governor of Meghalaya will be the visitor of the University and shall have power to issue directions as he deems fit in the interest of the University, which shall be binding on all the concerned. Exercising powers under Section 13(3)(b) of the Act of 2009, the Visitor under an order dated 30.4.2013 issued certain directions including that the CMJ Univeristy, Shillong (Meghalaya) shall recall / withdraw all the Degrees awarded so far.
In view of the decision taken by the Visitor as per Section 13(3)(b) of the Act of 2009, the Diploma possessed by the appellant-petitioner is o more in existence. The appellant-petitioner, as such, is having no qualification in Computer Applications."
In view of the above, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the action of the respondents by which, they have (4 of 4) [CW-10796/2017] cancelled the appointment of the petitioner, after taking into account his eligibility of computer proficiency.
Adverting to the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that subsequent to his selection, the petitioner has obtained a certificate of RS-CIT on 16.03.2015, suffice is to say that the same is not tenable in light of the judgment of this Court dated 24.08.2017 rendered in the case of Sangeeta Sen Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5851/2017).
As a result of the aforesaid discussions, the present writ petition is dismissed.
(DINESH MEHTA), J.
/Mohan/S-105