Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Om Dutt Gaor And Ors vs State (Local Self Dep )Anr on 13 August, 2013
Author: Ajay Rastogi
Bench: Ajay Rastogi
D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.794/2013. Om Dutt Gaor & Others. VERSUS State of Rajasthan & Another. 13.08.2013. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.K.RANKA Mr.Om Dutt Gaor, petitioner-1 in person. *****
This intra-court appeal is filed by the appellant assailing the order of ld.Single Judge dt.01.08.2013.
The post of Lower Division Clerk came to be advertised by the respondents which is included in the schedule appended to the Rajasthan Municipal (Subordinate and Ministerial Service) Rules, 1963 (Ann.1) and as per the amendment which has been incorporated by the Notification dt.08.07.2009, the State Government in exercise of powers conferred under Sec.297 vide its amendment added proviso to Rule 6 contemplating the situation that such of the incumbents who are appointed on duly sanctioned post and completed 10 years of service on 10.04.2006 without intervention of the Court or Tribunal and are in service on the date of commencement of Rules i.e. 08.07.2009 are to be considered by the screening committee constituted by the State Government. In para-materia to the amendment, clause (10) was introduced as part of the advertisement and for such of the employees who are working and discharging duties of the post of Lower Division Clerk prior to 10.04.2006 and completed 10 years of service as on 10.04.2006 and also working on the date of advertisement same benefit has been awarded to them of granting bonus marks. It will be appropriate to reproduce clause (10) of the advertisement, which is in conformity with the amendment introduced by the Government dt.08.07.2009, ad intra:-
10. ??? ?? ???? :-
???????? ??????? ??? ????? :-
?????? ?? ??? ?????? ???????? ??????? ??? ?????????? ??????? ??? ????? ??? ??? ??????? ??? ??????/??????/????? ????/???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ??????? ?????? ??????? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ??????? ????? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?? ????? ?? ???? ?????? | ???????? ??? ?????? ?????????? ??? ??????? ???? ???? 1963 ?? ?????????? ?? ?????? ????????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ??????? ??? ??????? ??????????? ?? 70 ??????? ????? ???? ?????? | ??????/??????/????? ????/???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??????? ??? ?????? ????? ?? ?? ?? ?????? 10.04.2006 ?? ??? ??????? ??? 10 ???? ?? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ????????? ?? 30 ??????? ??? ???? ??????? ? ??? ??????? ??? ??????/??????/????? ????/???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ??????? ?????? ??????? ?? ?????? 10.04.2006 ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ????????? ?? 10 ???? ?? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ??????? ??? ???????? ???? ???? ? ??????? ??????? ??????? (????? ?? ?? ????? ??) ??? ??????? ??? ???? ???? ???????????? ?? ????? ????????? ?? ?????? | It is a joint writ petition filed by as many as 46 petitioners with common grievance that they are working on contract basis with various Municipalities as computer operator but as a matter of fact discharging duties of Lower Division Clerk in their respective establishments and the benefit of grant of bonus marks has not been extended as contemplated under clause (10) of the advertisement to such of the applicants and a mandate has been claimed against the respondents to award bonus marks to them as well obviously on the basis of the work experience and the service which the incumbent has rendered in their respective Municipalities.
The ld.Single Judge after taking into consideration the material which came on record was of the view that amendment was made by the State Government vide its Notification dt.08.07.2009 in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi [2006(4) SCC 1] and bonus marks were extended by the State Government for the purpose of recruitment under the advertisement impugned and to be more particular in the light of the clause (10) of the advertisement to award bonus marks to such of the incumbents who have rendered services in the various Municipalities or with the Government establishments as Lower Division Clerk holding work experience of similar nature of 10 years as on 10.04.2006 and obviously are in service on the date of amendment and taking note thereof as they have work experience in the government establishments, some benefit of past experience has to be awarded in the form of bonus marks to them for the purpose of participation in the selection process.
Indisputably, the present appellants were inducted into service on contractual basis and there initial appointment was not in conformity with the mandate of Art.14 of the Constitution and much after the cut-off date which was 10.04.2006 and as alleged they worked on the post of computer operator and there appears no similarity with the nature of job being discharged by the appellants in reference to the post which has been advertised by the respondents for regular selection in terms of the advertisement impugned herein and apart from the benefit of bonus marks, as extended by the State Government at least the appellants who are inducted in service after 10.04.2006, their appointments are not in conformity with the mandate of the Article 14 of Constitution which is one of the pre-condition to seek public employment, in absence whereof the appellants cannot be held justified in claiming the bonus marks on the basis of the service rendered by them.
The ld.Single Judge after taking note of the judgment of the Apex Court and so also the amendment introduced, was of the view that the applicants who are inducted in service on contractual basis much after 2006 are not entitled to claim the benefit of bonus marks. However, that will not preclude them from participating in the selection process and to secure their percentage of marks for evaluation of their merit obviously they are eligible in terms of the process which the respondents have initiated in reference to the advertisement impugned herein.
After going through the judgment of the ld.Single Judge and taking note of the submissions made, we do not find any apparent error being committed by the ld.Single Judge in the order impugned which may require interference, in the instant intra-court appeal, by this court.
Consequently, the appeal is wholly devoid of merit accordingly stands dismissed.
(J.K.RANKA),J. (AJAY RASTOGI),J. All corrections made in judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. Solanki DS, P.A