Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Rajesh Saini And Anr vs State (Rural Devlop An Panchayati)Ors on 19 May, 2017
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7637 / 2017
1. Rajesh Saini, Son of Shri Heera Lal Saini, Aged About 36 Years,
Resident of Village Rupawali Dhani Vaid Ki Dhani, Post Shishu
Ranoli, District Sikar
2. Surmila Kumari, Daughter of Shri Rameshwar Lal, Wife of Shri
Sardar Singh,, Aged About 33 Years, Resident of Dhani
Anandkawali, Via Reengus, District Sikar (Rajasthan)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary and Commissioner,
Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj,
Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Superintending Hydrogeologist (S&R) & Project Leader
(RWSRP), Ground Water Department, Government of Rajasthan,,
72-B, Jhalana Dungri Road, Jaipur
3. Incharge Ground Water Scientist, Ground Water Department,
Government of Rajasthan, Sikar
4. The Executive Engineer, Rashtriya Jal Grahan Karyakaram, Zila
Parishad, Sikar
5. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sikar
6. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jaipur
7. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur
8. The Secretary, Centre for Community Economics and
Development Consultants Society, Swaraj,, F-159-160, Sitapura
Industrial Area, Jaipur
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________ (2 of 4) [CW-7637/2017] For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Kalwania For Respondent(s) :
_____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Judgment 19/05/2017 The present petition has been filed by persons who have purportedly worked as Community Facilitator in Ground Water Department, Sikar. They have applied for the post of LDC. As per the scheme any person who has worked on various posts specified in clause 11 of the Advertisement (Annexure-1) is to be awarded bonus marks towards experience gained by him. A candidate who had worked on the post specified in the clause 11 of the Advertisement, for a period of 1 or 2 years, is to be awarded 10 bonus marks; anybody who has worked more than two years but less than three years is to be granted 20 bonus marks and similarly, a person who has worked for more than three years, is to be granted 30 bonus marks.
Clause 11 of the advertisement (Annexure-1) is in consonance with the proviso to amended rule 273 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter called as 'Rules of 1996'). The said proviso reads as under:-
"Provided also that in case of appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk, merit shall be prepared by the Appointing Authority on the basis of marks obtained in such qualifying academic examination as specified in the schedule I of chapter XII of these rules and such bonus marks as may be specified by the State Government having regard to the length of experience, more than one year, as Junior Technical Assistant (JTA), Junior Engineer, Gram (3 of 4) [CW-7637/2017] Rozgar Sahayak, Data Entry Operator, Computer Operator with Machine (engaged other than placement agencies), Lekha Sahayak, Lower Division Clerk, Co-ordinator IEC, Coordinator Training, Coordinator Supervision in MGNREGA or any post under any scheme of the Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj."
The only question which has been raised before this Court is that whether a person who is working as Community Facilitator is to be considered among the post noticed and specified in clause 11 of the advertisement and proviso to rule 273 of Rules of 1996. It is admitted position that the post of Community Facilitator has not been specified in the clause 11 of the proviso to rule 273 of Rules of 1996.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that similarly, post of Secretary, Water Shed Committee under the Integrated Water Shed Management Programme was not included but a Division Bench of this Court in bunch of writ petitions, lead case being D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5861/2013 MANOHAR LAL JAGA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS, decided on 18.4.2014, has held that Secretary, Water Shed Committee is entitled to be granted bonus marks.
Role of the Secretary, Water Shed Committee and Community Facilitator are entirely different. Secretary of the Water Shed Committee performs clerical functions, whereas a perusal of the experience certificate (Annexure-7) issued in favour of one of Community Facilitator reveals that Community Facilitator has to act as a Public Relation Man. He has to interact with the persons of community. The exact wording of the experience certificate of one of the petitioner reads as under:-
(4 of 4) [CW-7637/2017] "vkius GPLC jk/kkfd"kuiqjk, xksdqyiqjk, eydsMk esa mijkSDr vof/k ds nkSjku Hkw &ty laj{k.k ,oa lao/kZu gsrq tu lEidZ, xkzeh.k CkSBdss ,lwpuk, f"k{kk ,oa laiz{ks.k xfrfof/k;ksa ,oa Hkw& ty iquHkZj.k lajpukvks dks tu lgHkkfxrk ls fdz;kUo;u djkusa dk dk;Z fd;k ,mijkSDr vof/k ds nkSjku vkidk dk;Z ljkguh; jgk gSA "
Therefore, a Community Facilitator has to give information to the people regarding the decision taken by the Gram Panchayat. He has to educate people for conservation of underground water and he has to ensure participation of the people. None of the function is germane to the duties to be performed by LDC. A public opinion maker cannot have experience of a clerical job, therefore, rule making authority and the respondent in the advertisement have rightly excluded the post of Community Facilitator.
Taking totality of circumstances, no interference is warranted, as it cannot be said that Community Facilitator is entitled to grant of bonus marks for the experience gained by him towards post of LDC.
Consequently, the present petition is dismissed.
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)J. Mak/-