Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Abhay Kant Sharma And Ors vs State Personnel Departmentors on 29 November, 2019
Author: Prakash Gupta
Bench: Prakash Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Writ Miscellaneous Application No. 267/2017
1. Abhay Kant Sharma S/o Sh. Om Prakash Sharma,
Resident Of Village Garhi, Post Mainpura, Tehsil Vair,
District Bharatpur Raj.
2. Arvind Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Kishori Lal Sharma,
Resident Of 13/684, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur
3. Arvind Sharma S/o Sh. Dal Chand Sharma, Kot Mohalla,
Bhusawar Tehsil Vair, District Bharatpur Raj.
4. Surendra Kumar S/o Late Sh. Ram Dhan Choubey,
Resident Of Choubey Krishi Farm, Bayana Road,
Bhusawar, Tehsil Vair, District Bharatpur Raj.
5. Ram Babu Sharma S/o Sh. Brijendra Kumar, R/o Village
Maharajpura, Post Pathena, Tehsil Vair District Bharatpur
Raj.
6. Pankaj Gaud S/o Sh. Rasik Mohan Sharma, Resident Of
Hat Bazaar, High School Street, Nadbai, District
Baharatpur.
7. Ritu Raj Singh Shekawat S/o Shri Shiv Raj Singh,
Resident Of House No. 151, Shri Ram Nagar-A, Jhotwara,
Jaipur.
8. Surendra Singh S/o Sh. Shyam Lal, Resident Of Village
And Post Hatizer, Tehsil Vair, District Bharatpur Raj.
9. Vinod Kumar S/o Sh. Goduram, Resident Of 41-A, Mitra
Nagar, Ram Nagar, Sodala, Jaipur.
10. Chandan Singh Yadav S/o Sh. Hari Kishan Yadav, Resident
Of F-3, Ram Nagar Extension, Sodala, Jaipur.
11. Bhagwan Singh S/o Sh. Banne Singh, Resident Of Village
Nanglia Khutela, Post Bahej, Tehsil Deeg, District
Bharatpur.
12. Ram Avtar Singh Sura S/o Sh. Natha Ram Sura, Resident
Of -101, Padam Vihar, In Front Of Rajat Path, New
Sanganer Road, Jaipur.
13. Manoj Kumar Sharma S/o Sh Mahesh Chand Sharma,
Resident Of Mishro Ka Mohalla, Mahua, District Dausa Raj.
----Petitioners
Versus
(Downloaded on 05/12/2019 at 09:01:09 PM)
(2 of 4) [WMAP-267/2017]
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Personnel, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Govt.
Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission Through Its
Secretary, Rpsc, Ajmer.
3. Rajasthan Knowledge Corporation Limited Through Its
Chairman, 7A, Jhalana Industrial Area, Behind Rto, Jaipur.
4. Dilip Kumar Sharma Son Of Sh. Bhagwan Sahay Sharma,
Resident Of Village And Post Hongotiya, Tehsil And District
Dausa.
5. Anil Kumar Sharma Son Of Sh. Buddhi Prakash, Resident
Of House No. 2798, Purohita Ka Chowk, Kalyan Ji Ka
Rasta, Chandpole Bazaar, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Samdariya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Darsh Pareek
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Order 29/11/2019 Learned counsel for the applicants submits that after the judgment having been rendered by the Division Bench on 17.12.2013, the State Government itself amended the Rule and made it optional for the Stenographers to attempt the examination either in Hindi or in English Stenography vide Notification dated 14th March, 2016. Learned counsel thus submits that the validity of the Rule which was existing at that time and upheld by the impugned judgment deserves to be recalled and the new facts which have come on record be noticed. Learned counsel further submits that the amendment is curative amendment and it should be given a retroactive effect. Learned counsel further submits that in-fact in 2013 when the Court was examining this (Downloaded on 05/12/2019 at 09:01:09 PM) (3 of 4) [WMAP-267/2017] matter, the State Government was already in the process of making amendment in the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Service Rules 1999 with regard to option for appearing either in Hindi or English Stenography examination.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant. However, we are unable to agree with the submissions of the learned counsel as by the judgment which was rendered on 17th December, 2013, the Court was examining the validity and legality of the Rule which was existing on the statute on that particular date and not in futuro. It was not the case of the applicants that the State Government is in the process of amending the Rules. The only aspect which was noticed by the Division Bench at that stage was that the RPSC had recommended for making amendments in the Rules. The Division Bench has observed that such provision is helpful for the purpose of benefit of good administration and has approved the rule which was existing at that particular stage. Subsequent amendment made in the Rule would not render a judgment to be sufficient for recalling.
The Court Court examining the validity of rule examines it on the anvil of the constitutional provisions and also whether it has any nexus to the purpose sought to be achieved. The question of retroactivity of the new provision added vide Notification dated 14th March, 2016 could not be examined in appeal decided in 2013 and hence it is not in scope for examination in this review petition.
(Downloaded on 05/12/2019 at 09:01:09 PM)
(4 of 4) [WMAP-267/2017]
The application for recalling the judgment dated
17.12.2013 is misconceived. It is accordingly dismissed. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J (PRAKASH GUPTA),J DILIP KHANDELWAL /2 (Downloaded on 05/12/2019 at 09:01:09 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)