Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Omnarayan Nanoma vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 27 May, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:25909]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9637/2025
Nathu Lal Pargi S/o Late Shri Jivraj Pargi, Aged About 42 Years,
R/o Pargi Fala, Mukam- Dadroda, Post- Bhamai, Panchayat
Samiti- Simalwara, District- Dungarpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dungarpur.
4. Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Simalwara, District
Dungarpur.
5. Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Galiyacot, District
Dungarpur.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9568/2025
Omnarayan Nanoma S/o Late Shri Jivram Nanoma, Aged About
24 Years, R/o Ward No. 5, Mukam Rajpur, Post Peeth, Panchayat
Samiti Simalwara, District Dungarpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dungarpur.
4. Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Simalwara, District
Dungarpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9625/2025
(Downloaded on 27/05/2025 at 09:45:17 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:25909] (2 of 7) [CW-9637/2025]
Bapu Lal Dendor S/o Late Shri Mani Lal Dendor, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Mukam-Mithi Limdi, Post Kuwan, Panchayat Samiti
Simalwara, District Dungarpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dungarpur.
4. Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Simalwara, District
Dungarpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramesh Kumar Prajapat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. I.R. Choudhary, AAG with
Mr. Pawan Bhati
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order 27/05/2025 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9637/2025 :
1. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Prajapat, 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. I.R. Choudhary, 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:-
(Downloaded on 27/05/2025 at 09:45:17 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:25909] (3 of 7) [CW-9637/2025] "24. True it is, that the circular dated 19.08.2010 mentions that a candidate has to clear type test on computer but the 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 (April 2022) but shall nevertheless (Downloaded on 27/05/2025 at 09:45:17 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:25909] (4 of 7) [CW-9637/2025] give actual increments after April, 2022 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. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9568/2025 :
1. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Prajapat, 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. I.R. Choudhary, 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 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 (Downloaded on 27/05/2025 at 09:45:17 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:25909] (5 of 7) [CW-9637/2025] 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 (September 2019) but shall nevertheless give actual increments after September 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. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9625/2025 :
1. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Prajapat, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in the present writ (Downloaded on 27/05/2025 at 09:45:17 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:25909] (6 of 7) [CW-9637/2025] 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. I.R. Choudhary, 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 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:-
(Downloaded on 27/05/2025 at 09:45:17 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:25909] (7 of 7) [CW-9637/2025] (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 (June 2017) but shall nevertheless give actual increments after June 2017 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 319-321-SanjayS/-
(Downloaded on 27/05/2025 at 09:45:17 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)