Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Yogesh Meghwal & Anr vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 23 November, 2017
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 696 / 2017
1. Raju Solanki S/o Shri Amba Lal Solanki, Aged About 33 Years,
R/o 733/54, Pulla, District- Udaipur.
2. Rekha Ajmera D/o Shri Radha Kishan Ajmera, Aged About 41
Years, R/o 811, Surya Nagar, Sector-3, Hiran Magri, District-
Udaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Rural Development and
Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Deputy Secretary, Administrative Reforms (Group-3)
Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj
Department, Jaipur.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Udaipur, District-
Udaipur.
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 544 / 2017
Shenidan Singh Charan S/o Shri Vasudev Singh Charan, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o Village Dhaniyaka, Post Sathiya, Tehsil
Kumbalgarh, District Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Principal Secretary, Department
of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj (Panchayati Raj),
Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Deputy Secretary, Administrative Reforms (Group-3),
Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur Rajasthan.
3. Additional Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchayati
Raj Department, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
(2 of 5)
[ SAW-696/2017]
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 657 / 2017
1. Madan Lal S/o Sona Ram, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village
Guradai, Post Dayalpura, Tehsil- District Pali, Rajasthan.
2. Maangi Lal S/o Deva Ram, R/o Village Sundelao, Post Chanoad,
Tehsil-District Pali, Rajasthan.
3. Sunder Kanwar D/o Ugam Singh, R/o 117, Adarsh Nagar Pali,
Rajasthan.
4. Pataram Meena S/o Choga Ram Meena, R/o V/P Dari, Tehsil-
District Pali, Rajasthan.
5. Shail Singh S/o Arjun Singh Rajput, R/o Village Lapod Tehsil
Sumerpur, District Pali, Rajasthan.
6. Ramesh Kumar Parangi S/o Mula Ram, R/o V/p Bisalpur, Tehsil
Bali, District Pali, Rajasthan.
7. Bawal Suresh S/o Hukma Ram, R/o Village- Post Kot Baliyan,
Tehsil Bali, District- Pali, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Principal Secretary, Department
of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj (Panchayati Raj),
Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Deputy Secretary, Administrative Reforms (Group-3)
Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Additional Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchayati
Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Pali, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 717 / 2017
1. Yogesh Meghwal Son of Shri Bhagwan Meghwal, Aged About 28
Years, Resident of RHB Colony, Sector 14, Goverdhan Vilas,
Udaipur.
2. Priyanka Verma Daughter of Shri Bhagwan Lal Verma, Aged
(3 of 5)
[ SAW-696/2017]
About 30 Years, Resident of RHB Colony, Sector 14, Goverdhan
Vilas, Udaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary,
Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj (Panchayati
Raj), Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Deputy Secretary, Administrative Reforms (Group-3)
Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Additional Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchayatiraj
Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
____________________________________________________
For Appellant(s) : Mr.Ramesh Kumar Prajapat
Mr.Ravindra Singh
Mr.Pawan Singh
Mr.Mahaveer Singh
Mr.R.J.Punia
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Rajesh Panwar, Addl.Advocate General
Mr.Shyam Paliwal
Ms.Sonakshi Lohiya
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMCHANDRA SINGH JHALA
Order 23/11/2017
1. Since unfortunately the orders which have been impugned in the above captioned appeals does not note the relevant facts, we note the relevant facts and then decide the appeals.
(4 of 5) [ SAW-696/2017]
2. An advertisement was issued on 14.2.2013 inviting applications to appoint Lower Division Clerks under the Panchayati Raj Department and the appointment was governed by the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. Pertaining to eligibility of having a RSCIT certificate the appellants filed writ petitions relying upon a corrigendum dated 28.3.2013. The corrigendum in question does not relate to the advertisement dated 14.2.2013 for the reason it is a corrigendum to a notification dated 25.3.2013. The correct corrigendum is dated 7 th May, 2013 and regrettably if the same was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge by both parties or either of them, the dispute would have been resolved very easily.
3. Clause 30 of the corrigendum required the eligibility to be attained by the date the select list was notified. Meaning thereby, as against the normal rule of law that in the absence of a date notified by which eligibility has to be acquired, the last date of submitting applications would be the date of eligibility, the corrigendum shifted the date of eligibility to the date when the select list was prepared. In that view of the matter such writ petitioners who had acquired the necessary educational and technical qualifications before 23.6.2013 were required to be treated as eligible for the reason select list was notified on 23.6.2013.
4. Since the exercise of verifying whether the necessary educational and technical qualifications were obtained on or before 23.6.2013 has not been carried out, we dispose of the appeals (5 of 5) [ SAW-696/2017] declaring that such appellants who had acquired the necessary educational and technical qualifications before 23.6.2013 shall be treated an eligible as well as qualified candidates and those who have obtained the same after 23.6.2013 would not be treated as eligible candidates. The selections are being made by the Panchayati Raj Department itself and thus the Department would proceed ahead keeping in view the present decision. (RAMCHANDRA SINGH JHALA)J. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)CJ. Parmar