Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Bajrang Lal Saini And Ors vs State (Revenue Department) Ors on 1 November, 2017
Author: Ashok Kumar Gaur
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11309 / 2017
Shivdutt Singh Rathore S/o Shri Durga Singh Rathore, Aged About
22 Years, R/o A-320, Sanganer Colony, Kota Road, Bhilwara,
District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through, Department of Revenue, Through
Secretary, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Secretary, Rajasthan Sub-Ordinate And Ministerial Service
Selection Board, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution
C, Jaipur.
3. Registrar, Board of Revenue, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9630 / 2017
1. Om Prakash Choudhary S/o Shri Kharta Ram Choudhary, Aged
About 24 Years, R/o V/p AID Sindary, Tehsil Sindary, Barmer (raj.)
2. Mangi Ram Khod S/o Shri Om Prakash, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o VPO Naithrana, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh
3. Amit Kumar S/o Shri Mohan Singh, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
VPO Shrinagar (Rundh), Tehsil Rupbas, District Bharatpur
4. Anil Das Swami S/o Shri Sohan Das, Aged About 22 Years, R/o
Village Bader, Post Bakaliya, Tehsil Ladnu, Nagaur (Raj.)
5. Vishesh Kumar S/o Shri Laksmi Narayan, Aged About 19 Years,
R/o Village Dhosi, Tehsil Khetri, Jhunjhunu
6. Dharampal S/o Shri Balbir Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Village Tetali Nagar (Mailasi), Post Jheeghar Chhoti, Via
Katarathal, District Sikar (Raj.)
7. Kistura Ram S/o Shri Surta Ram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Village Motiberi, Post Kekar, Tehsil Sedva (Barmer)
8. Vikram S/o Shri Sain Kumar, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Ward
No.2, Chaiya, Tehsil Rawatsar, Hanumangarh (Raj.)
9. Manoj Kukna S/o Shri Raju Ram, Aged About 24 Years, R/o VPO
Alay, Tehsil & District Nagaur
10. Radhey Shyam S/o Shri Bihari Lal, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
(2 of 41)
[ CW-11309/2017]
VPO Bhanguli, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh
11. Dharmendra Singh S/o Shri Shishram, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o VPO Dabari Baloda, Via Doomara, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District
Jhunjhunu
12. Rajendra Singh S/o Shri Mahendra Singh, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Paharganj 2nd, Behind Water Works Lal Sagar Road,
Jodhpur
13. Mahendra Kumar Meena S/o Shri Jamna Lal Meena, Aged
About 20 Years, R/o Village and Post Kalamal, Post
Gudhasadawartiya, Tehsil Nainwa, District Bundi
14. Praveen Soni S/o Shri Govind Kumar Soni, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Nim Chowk, Sadar Bazar, Village Kurabad, District
Udaipur
15. Sandeep Kumar S/o Shri Aad Ram, Aged About 20 Years, R/o
VPO Banwali, Tehsil Sadulshahar, District Shri Ganganagar
16. Praveen Kumar Arya S/o Shri Rajendra Singh Arya, Aged
About 24 Years, R/o Village Kairwali, Post Puranabas, Tehsil
Neema Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through, Department of Revenue Through
Secretary, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Secretary, Rajasthan Sub-ordinate And Ministerial Service
Selection Board, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution
Campus, Jaipur
3. Registrar, Board of Revenue, Ajmer, Rajasthan
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11000 / 2017
1. Bajrang Lal Saini S/o Shri Har Chand Saini, by Caste Saini
(OBC), Aged About 39 Years, R/o Dhani Sirwala Ki, Village Babai,
Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu (Raj)
2. Vinod Kumar S/o Shri Lala Ram, Category OBC, Aged About 38
Years, R/o H.NO. 83, Kayasa, Tehsil Neemrana, District Alwar (Raj)
3. Rambeer Singh S/o Shri Nawal Singh, Category SBC/OBC, Aged
About 41 Years, R/o Village Tudawali, Post Parla, Tehsil
(3 of 41)
[ CW-11309/2017]
Todabheem, District Karauli (Raj.)
4. Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Raghunath Singh, Category OBC, Aged
About 44 Years, R/o Dulawa Colony, VPO Baragaon, Tehsil
Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
5. Raghunath Singh Khangarot S/o Shri Guman Singh Khangarot,
Category General, Aged About 41 Years, R/o 105, Ganesh Nagar,
Near Kanakpura, Jhotwara, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Principal Secretary, Revenue
Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Revenue Board, Ajmer Through Its Registrar.
3. Rajasthan Subordinate & Ministerial Service Selection Board
(RSMSSB), Jaipur Through Its Secretary, Rajasthan Agriculture
Management Institute, Durgapura, Jaipur 302018 (Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11411 / 2017
1. Chandra Shekhar Kaushik S/o Shri Shankar Lal Kaushik, Aged
About 24 Years, R/o 13F/75, Shanti Colony, Airport Ke Samne,
Sanganer, Jaipur.
2. Nardendra Kumar Meena S/o Shri Natthu Ram Meena, Aged
About 23 Years, R/o Village- Post Babell, Tehsil Rajgarh, District
Alwar, Rajasthan
3. Tarachand Meena S/o Shri Prabhu Narayan Meena, Aged About
23 Years, R/o Village Rampura Was, Post Thali, Tehsil
Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur
4. Pappu Ram Berwa S/o Shri Shyoji Ram Berwa, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Village Lapodiya, Tehsil Dudu, District Jaipur.
5. Rohitash Gadhwal S/o Shri Mohan Lal Gadhhwal, R/o Village
and Post Kishanpura, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur
6. Bhanwaree D/o Shri Gopal Singh, Aged About 23 Years, R/o
Ward No. 1, Losal, District Sikar, Rajasthan
7. Jagat Singh S/o Shri Baldev Raj Nirankari, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Nirankari Niwas, Ward No. 46, Ambedkar Nagar,
Fatehpur Road, Sikar.
(4 of 41)
[ CW-11309/2017]
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through, Department of Revenue, Through
Secretary, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Secretary, Rajasthan Sub-ordinate And Ministerial Service
Selection Board, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution
Campus, Jaipur
3. Registrar, Board of Revenue, Ajmer, Rajasthan
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12108 / 2017
1. Sangeeta Singh D/o Balram Singh, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
House No. 45, Vill. Basgudhliya, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa,
Rajasthan.
2. Anil Das Swami S/o Sohan Das, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Vill.
Dader, Tehsil Ladnun, Bakaliya, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
3. Manoj Kunka S/o Raju Ram, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Kunka Ki
Dhani, Alay, Nagaur, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
4. Krishan Kant Dixit S/o Bhola Ram, Aged About 20 Years, R/o
Vill & Post Undra, Bharatpur, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
5. Radhey Shyam S/o Bihari Lal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Vill.
Bhanguli, Post Meghana, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh,
Rajasthan.
6. Praveen Kumar Arya S/o Rajendra Singh Arya, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Village Kairwali, Post Puranbas, Neem Ka Thana,
District Sikar, Rajasthan.
7. Rajiv Kumar Sharma S/o Pooran Mal Sharma, Aged About 37
Years, R/o C-49-A, Sagar Enclave, Mangyawas Mansarovar,
Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
8. Abhimanyu Yadav S/o Girdhari Lal Yadav, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o A-1, Malayo Ka Mohalla, Naya Khera, Ambabari, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
9. Tara Chand Meena S/o Prabhu Narayan Meena, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Vill. Rampura Was, Post Thali, Tehsi Jamwaramgarh,
District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
10. Dharampal S/o Balbir Singh, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Vill.
Tetali Nagar, Mailasi, Post Jheeghar, Dhod, District Sikar,
(5 of 41)
[ CW-11309/2017]
Rajasthan.
11. Mangi Ram Khod S/o Om Prakash, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Ward No. 3, Vill & Post Nethrana, Tehsil Bhadara, District
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
12. Kistura Ram S/o Surta Ram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Vill.
Moti Beri, Post Kekar, Sedva, District Barmer, Rajasthan.
13. Rahul Singh Chauhan S/o Shri Vikram Singh Chauhan, Aged
About 25 Years, R/o Vill. Kankar, Post Kutina, Tehsil Neemrana,
District Alwar.
14. Jitendra Kumar Meena S/o Vishram Meena, Aged About 22
Years, R/o Vill & Post Samleti, Tehsil Mahwa, District Dausa,
Rajasthan.
15. Dharmendra Singh S/o Shishram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Vill. & Post Dabri Baloda, Via Doomara, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District
Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
16. Pukhraj S/o Bhoora Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Vill Mooni,
Post Chosala, Tehsil Nawa, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial Service Selection Board,
Through Its Secretary, State Institute of Agriculture Management
Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur 302018, Rajasthan, India.
3. Board of Revenue, Todarmal Marg, Civil Lines, Ajmer, Rajasthan
305001
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12652 / 2017
1. Girvar Kumar Bunkar S/o Shri Gariba Ram, Aged About 21
Years, R/o VPO Khiroti, Via - Ganeshwar, Tehsil Shri Madhopur,
Distt. Sikar, Rajasthan.
2. Girdari Lal S/o Shri Devi Lal, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village
24-SD, Tehsil Suratgarh, Distt. Shri Ganganagar.
----Petitioners
(6 of 41)
[ CW-11309/2017]
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through, Department of Revenue, Through
Secretary, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Secretary, Rajasthan Sub-ordinate And Ministerial Service
Selection Board, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution
Campus, Jaipur
3. Registrar, Board of Revenue, Ajmer, Rajasthan
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12424/2017
1. Rohitashav Yogi S/o Shri Johari Mal Yogi, Aged About 48 Years,
Resident of Village Neemuchana Tehsil Bansur, District. Alwar
(Raj.)
2. Virendra Singh S/o Shri Mohan Singh, Aged About 38 Years,
Resident of Village Bhonawas, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Radhey Shyam S/o Shri Chirmoli, Aged About 41 Years,
Resident of Baldevpura, P.O. Baroadakhan, Tehsil Laxmangarh,
District Alwar (Raj.)
4. Gopi Singh Gurjar S/o Shri Hari Singh Gurjar, Aged About 35
Years, Resident of VPO Paota, Tehsil Mahwa District Dausa (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Principal Secretary, Revenue
Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Revenue Board, Ajmer Through Its Registrar
3. Rajasthan Subordinate & Ministerial Service Selection Board
(RSMSSB), Jaipur Through Its Secretary, Rajasthan Agriculture
Management Institute Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur-302018 (Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10973/2017
Dharmveer Singh S/o Shri Kalwant Singh, Aged About 29 Years,
R/o VPO 34STG, Pilibangan, District Hanumangarh (Raj)
----Petitioner
Versus
(7 of 41)
[ CW-11309/2017]
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Principal Secretary, Revenue
Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Revenue Board, Ajmer Through Its Registrar.
3. Rajasthan Subordinate & Ministerial Service Selection Board
(RSMSSB), Jaipur Through Its Secretary, Rajasthan Agriculture
Management Institute Premises, Durgapura, Jaipour 302018 (Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17613/2017
1. Roop Vati D/o Shri Sunder Lal, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village
Post Newara, Tehsil Bhusawar, District Bharatpur.
2. Suraj Bhan Singh S/o Shri Karan Singh Ratanu, Aged About 22
Years, R/o Village Gemliyawas, Post Jalsu VIA Ren, Tehsil Degana,
District Nagaur.
3. Dharmraj Sharma S/o Shri Banshi Dhar Sharma, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Brahmano Ka Baad, VPO Simarla Jageer, VIA- Maharoli,
Tehsil Shrimadhopur, Distt. Sikar.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through, Department of Revenue, Through
Secretary, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Secretary, Rajasthan Sub-ordinate And Ministerial Service
Selection Board, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution
Campus, Jaipur.
3. Registrar, Board of Revenue, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17552/2017
1. Lekhraj Meena S/o Shri Bissi Ram Meena, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o Village Jhuthahera Khurd, Post Balahera, Tehsil Baswa, District
Dausa.
2. Mahendra Kumar Goriya S/o Shri Ram Kishan, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Village Jarga, Post Jarga, Tehsil Khanpur, District
Jhalawar.
3. Antima Rathor D/o Shri Rameshwar Rathor, Aged About 22
Years, R/o Ward No. 19, Mangrol, Distt. Baran.
(8 of 41)
[ CW-11309/2017]
4. Babu Lal Meena S/o Shri Ram Swaroop Meena, Aged About 22
Years, R/o Village Mundiyawas, Post Bhangroli, Tehsil Thanagazi,
District Alwar.
5. Harsh Deep Thakrani S/o Shri Chiranji Lal Thakrani, Aged About
23 Years, R/o Jagdamba Video Library, Bhagat Singh Chowk,
Suratgarh, Distt. Ganganagar.
6. Ravindra Kumar Mahawar S/o Shri Vijay Singh Mahawar, Aged
About 22 Years, R/o VPO Palanheda, Tehsil Mahwa, Distt. Dausa.
7. Jagbir Singh S/o Shri Narayan Singh, Aged About 52 Years, R/o
Thok Shekh, Village Sinsini, Tehsil Deeg, Distt. Bharatpur.
8. Lachchhi Ram Gurjar S/o Shri Battu Ram Gurjar, Aged About 38
Years, R/o VPO Paota, Tehsil Mahwa, Distt. Dausa.
9. Suvita D/o Shri Lotha Ram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village
Bajaroli, Post Meeran, Tehsil Laxmangarh, Distt. Sikar.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through, Department of Revenue, Through
Secretary, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Secretary, Rajasthan Sub-ordinate And Ministerial Service
Selection Board, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution
Campus, Jaipur.
3. Registrar, Board of Revenue, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17610/2017
Preeti Sheshma D/o Shri Om Prakash, by Caste Jat (OBC), Aged
About 21 Years, R/o PurohitKa Bas, Bay, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District
Jhunjhunu
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department of
Revenue, Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial Service Selection Board,
Jaipur Through Secretary, State Agriculture Management
Institution Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur
3. Registrar, Board of Revenue, Ajmer, Rajasthan
(9 of 41)
[ CW-11309/2017]
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17958/2017
1. Om Prakash Sevak S/o Shri Narayan Lal Sevak, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Near Bus Stand, Diwara Bara, Tehsil Sagwara, Distt.
Dungarpur.
2. Amandeep Kaur D/o Shri Santokh Singh, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Chak 4 JKM, P.O. CSF Colony, Jaitsir, Tehsil Raisingh Nagar,
Distt. Shri Ganganagar.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through, Department of Revenue, Through
Secretary, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Secretary, Rajasthan Sub-ordinate And Ministerial Service
Selection Board, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution
Campus, Jaipur.
3. Registrar, Board of Revenue, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18171/2017
1. Rajendra Singh S/o Shri Hari Singh, Aged About 37 Years, R/o
Village Kherli Gurjar, Post Halena, Tehsil Weir, District Bharatpur
(raj.) OBC/Ex Serviceman.
2. Veer Singh Jat S/o Shri Fateh Singh, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
Village Mohanpur, Post Raghuvanshi, Tehsil and District Karauli
(raj.) OBC/Ex Serviceman.
3. Vijay Singh Saini S/o Shri Bharoshi Saini, Aged About 24 Years,
R/o Village and Post Malipura Kondlr, Tehsil Mahuwa, District
Dausa (raj.) OBC
4. Kadam Singh Gurjar S/o Shri Jorawar Singh, Aged About 35
Years, R/o Village Tyohari, Post Umrind, Tehsil Weir, District
Bharatpur (raj.) OBC/Ex. Serviceman.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Revenue
Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (raj.)
2. The Revenue Board, Ajmer Through Its Registrar.
3. Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial Service Selection Board
(10 of 41)
[ CW-11309/2017]
(RSMSSB) Jaipur Through Its Secretary, Rajasthan Agriculture
Management Institute Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur. (raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17167/2017
1. Ramniwas Thori S/o Shri Sukha Ram, Aged About 21 Years, R/o
Village Dholiya, Post Rabdiyad, Tehsil Parbatsar, District Nagaur.
2. Suresh S/o Shri Suganaram, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village
Bhagwan, Post Deidas, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.
3. Silochana D/o Shri Dharmpal, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village
Bass Jiram, Post Biran, Tehsil Rajgarh, Distt. Churu.
4. Sandeep Kanshana S/o Shri Kedar Singh Kanshana, Aged About
27 Years, R/o Rai Sahab Ka Bada, Gadarpura Road, Dholpur.
5. Umesh Kumar S/o Shri Ramveer Singh, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o Village Nagla Churaman, Post Ludhawai, Tehsil Bharatpur,
District Bharatpur.
6. Manish Kumar Seju S/o Shri Jagjivan Ram, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Village & Post Sandhuva, Tehsil Fatehgarh, District
Jaisalmer.
7. Sushila Swami D/o Shri Bihari Lal Swami, Aged About 21 Years,
R/o VPO Ajmeri, Via Ajitgarh, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar.
8. Priyanka Malawat D/o Shri Trilok Chand Sansi, Aged About 29
Years, R/o House No. 125, Near New Park, Kawa Khera, Bhilwara.
9. Hansram S/o Shri Ajmat Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o VPO
Sikandra, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur.
10. Mahendra Kumar Jat S/o Shri Rajendra Kumar Jat, Aged About
25 Years, R/o Village Maheshpura, Jairampura Road, Tehsil Amer,
Distt. Jaipur.
11. Sharwan Singh S/o Shri Gordhan Singh, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o VPO Dhananwa, Tehsil Toshina, Makarana, Distt. Nagaur.
12. Madan Mohan Meena S/o Shri Kalyan Lal Meena, Aged About
21 Years, R/o Village Dodi, Post Dokun, Tehsil Nainwan, Distt.
Bundi.
13. Rajkumar Dhaka S/o Shri Bhagirath Ram, Aged About 28
Years, R/o 44, Anupam Vihar, Ward No. 2, Road No. 14, VKI Road,
Jaipur.
(11 of 41)
[ CW-11309/2017]
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through, Department of Revenue, Through
Secretary, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Secretary, Rajasthan Sub-ordinate And Ministerial Service
Selection Board, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution
Campus, Jaipur.
3. Registrar, Board of Revenue, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17166/2017
Jugal Kanwar W/o Late Shri Narpat Singh D/o Shri Sumer Singh,
Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Sewa, Tehsil Didwana, District
Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through, Department of Revenue, Through
Secretary, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Secretary, Rajasthan Sub Ordinate and Ministerial Service
Selection Board, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution
Campus, Jaipur.
3. Registrar, Board of Revenue, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10966/2017
1. Abhimanyu Yadav S/o Shri Girdhari Lal Yadav, Aged About 27
Years, Resident of S-1, Malayon Ka Mohalla, Naya Kheda,
Ambabari, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Rajiv Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Pooran Lal Sharma, Aged About
37 Years, Resident of C-49-A, Sagar Enclave, Mangtawas,
Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Vijay Laxmi Khandelwal D/o Shri Suresh Kumar Khandelwal,
Aged About 32 Years, Resident of Plot No. 316, 10-B Scheme,
Triveni Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Principal Secretary, Revenue
Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
(12 of 41)
[ CW-11309/2017]
2. The Revenue Board, Ajmer Through Its Registrar
3. Rajasthan Subordinate & Ministerial Service Selection Board
(RSMSSB), Jaipur Through Its Secretary, Rajasthan Agriculture
Management Institute Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur-302018 (Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18289 / 2017
Shivani Singh D/o Jagmohan Singh Chouhan, Aged About 21
Years, R/o Behruji Bus Stand, Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Principle Secretary, Revenue
Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The State of Rajasthan Through Principle Secretary, Personnel
Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Sub-ordinate And Ministerials Service
Selection Board, State Agriculture Management Institute,
Durgapura, Jaipur.
4. The Registrar, Revenue Board, Rajasthan, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12208 / 2017
Bhanwar Pratap Singh Tanwar S/o Shri Jaswant Singh Tanwar,
Aged About 45 Years, Resident of Village & Post Hasanpur, Neem
Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Principal Secretary, Revenue
Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Revenue Board, Ajmer Through Its Registrar
3. Rajasthan Subordinate & Ministerial Service Selection Board
(RSMSSB), Jaipur Through Its Secretary, Rajasthan Agriculture
Management Institute Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur- 302018 (Raj.)
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
(13 of 41)
[ CW-11309/2017]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.R.N.Mathur, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Ajatsatru Mina, Adv.
Mr.Tanveer Ahamad, Adv.
Mr.Raghunandan Sharma, Adv.
Mr.Salim Khan, Adv.
Mr.Hanuman Singh, Adv.
Mr.Ram Pratap Saini, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Rajendra Prasad, AAG with
Mr.Sandeep Taneja, Adv.
Mr.Vigyan Shah, Adv.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR
Order
Order reserved on : 14.10.2017
Order pronounced on : 01.11.2017
<><><><>
The present batch of writ petitions challenges the
corrigendum dated 30.11.2015 issued by Rajasthan Subordinate
and Ministerial Service Selection Board, whereby the eligibility and
qualification for the post of Patwari was to be considered on or
before the date of preliminary examination.
The common grievance raised by the petitioners in the
present writ petitions is to consider their RS-CIT certificate course
completed on or before the main written examination on
24.12.2016. The petitioners have further common grievance about
the condition contained in the corrigendum alleging it to be
contrary to the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules,
1957 read with Rajasthan Subordinate Service (Recruitment and
(14 of 41)
[ CW-11309/2017]
other Service Conditions) Rules, 1960 read with Rajasthan Various
Service (Amendment) Rules, 1999.
The brief facts of the case are that an advertisement dated
04.11.2015 was issued by the Rajasthan Subordinate and
Ministerial Service Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as "the
Board") wherein online applications were invited for 4400 posts of
Patwari to be filled in different districts. It was provided in the
advertisement that as per Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land
Records) Rules, 1957 and as per the Rajasthan Scheduled Areas
Subordinate, Ministerial & Class-IV Service (Recruitment and other
Service Conditions) Rules, 2014, applications were invited to give
admissions for selection of Patwari and to give admission in Patwar
Training Course. The advertisement had provided specifically 3879
posts in Non-Scheduled areas and 421 posts in Scheduled areas.
The advertisement provided special instructions in Clause-5 of the
advertisement for Scheduled areas and in sub-clause (8) of
Clause-5, it was provided that candidate who had applied for
direct recruitment under the rules was also eligible to apply, if
he/she had appeared in the final year examination of requisite
educational qualification or such candidate was to appear in the
examination but he/she was required to produce the proof of
acquiring the requisite educational qualification at the time of
written examination.
The Clause-7 of the said advertisement provided for
eligibility and other educational qualification for the candidates
who were to apply in the Non-Scheduled areas. It was provided
(15 of 41)
[ CW-11309/2017]
that candidates at the time of submitting applications must
possess the eligibility of passing 10+2/Senior Secondary; (ii)
working knowledge of Hindi written in Devnagari script and
knowledge of Rajasthani culture; and (iii) the different computer
courses/certificates. The advertisement provided for submission of
online applications from 10.11.2015 to 10.12.2015. The relevant
Clauses of the advertisement are reproduced as under:-
"jktLFkku Hkw&jktLo ¼Hkw&vfHkys[k½ fu;e] 1957 ,oa jktLFkku vuqlwfpr
{ks= v/khuLFk] ea=kyf;d ,oa prqFkZ Js.kh lsok ¼HkrhZ ,oa lsok dh vU;
'krsZa½ fu;e] 2014 ds vUrxZr jkT; dh iVokj izf'k{k.k 'kkykvksa esa izos'k
gsrq iVokj lh/kh HkrhZ ijh{kk ds iz;kstukFkZ jktLo e.My] vtesj }kjk
lwfpr fd, x, iVokjh ds 4400 inksa ij HkrhZ gsrq fu/kkZfjr izi= esa
vkWuykbZu vkosnu i= ¼On Line Application Form½ vkeaf=r fd;s tkrs
gSA vkosnd p;u ds ckn ftl ftys esa inLFkkiu pkgrs gSa mu ftyksa
dh izkFkfedrkvksa dk Øe vkWuykbZu vkosnu i= esa fu/kkZfjr dkWye esa
vo'; HkjsaA ftu vkosndksa }kjk ftyksa ds izkFkfedrk Øe dk mYys[k ugha
fd;k tkrk gS rks mudh izkFkfedrk jktLo e.My }kjk r; dh
tk;sxhA"
"5- vuqlfw pr {ks= ds vH;fFkZ;ksa ds fy, fo'ks"k funsZ'k%&
3- vuqlwfpr {ks= ds fy, dkfeZdksa dk p;u jktLFkku vuqlwfpr {ks=
v/khuLFk] ea=kyf;d ,oa prqFkZ Js.kh lsok ¼HkrhZ ,oa vU; lsok 'krsZ½
fu;e&2014 ds v/khu gksxkA tgka ij bu fu;eksa esa Li"V izko/kku ugah
gS] ogka ij jktLFkku Hkw&jktLo ¼Hkw&vfHkys[k½ fu;e] 1957 ds izko/kku
ykxw gksaXksA
8- ijUrq ,slk O;fDr] tks lh/kh HkrhZ gsrq fu;eksa esa ;Fkk&mfYyf[kr in ds
fy, visf{kr 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk okys ,sls ikB~;Øe ds vfUre o"kZ dh ijh{kk
esa mifLFkr gks pqdk gS@pqdh gS ;k mifLFkr gks jgk@jgh gS] ml in ds
fy, vkosnu djus dk ik= gksxh@gksxh fdUrq mls fyf[kr ijh{kk esa
mifLFkr gksus ls iwoZ jktLFkku v/khUkLFk ,oa e=kyf;d lsok p;u cksMZ]
t;iqj dks visf{kr 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk vftZr dj ysus dks lcwr izLrqr djuk
gksxkA"
"7- ik=rk ,oa 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk%& vkosnu i= izLrqr djrs le;
vkosnd dh fuEufyf[kr ;ksXrk,a gksuh pkfg, %&
¼i½ vkosnd 10+$2@lhfu;j lSd.Mjh Ldwy ijh{kk mRrh.kZ ;k blds
led{k vU; ijh{kk mRrh.kZ ftls ljdkj }kjk ekU;rk iznku dh gqbZ gS]
vkSj
¼ii½ nsoukxjh fyih esa fy[kh fgUnh esa dk;Z djus dk Kku ,oa jktLFkku
dh LkLad`fr dk Kku ,oa fuEukafdr ;ksX;rk,sa gksuk vko';d Gs%&
¼iii½ Hkkjr ljdkj ds bysDVªksfuDl foHkkx ds fu;a=.kk/khu fMikVZesUV
vkWQ bysDVªksfUkDl ,ØhfMVs'ku vkWQ dEI;wVj dkslZ ¼DOEACC½ }kjk
(16 of 41)
[ CW-11309/2017]
vk;ksftr ÞvksÞ ysoy ;k mPp Lrj izek.k&i=
;k
O;kolkf;d izf'k{k.k ;kstuk ds jk"Vªh; ifj"kn ¼us'kuy dkWfly½@jkT;
ifj"kn ¼LVsV dkWfly½ ds v/khu vk;ksftr dEI;wVj vkWijsVj ,oa izksxzkfeax
vflLVsaV ¼COPA½@DATA rS;kjh vkSj dEI;wVj lkW¶Vos;j ¼DPCS½ dkslZ
dk izek.k&i=
;k
Hkkjr esa fof/k }kjk laLFkkfir fo'ofo|ky; ;k ljdkj }kjk ekU;rk izkIr
laLFkku ls dEI;wVj lkabl@dEI;wVj ,Iyhds'ku esa fMIyksek
;k
ljdkj ls ekU;rk izkIr ikWfyVsfDud laLFkku ls dEI;wVj foKku ;k
bathfu;fjax esa fMIyksek
;k
jktLFkku ukWyst dkWjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds fu;a=.k esa o/kZeku egkohj [kqyk
fo'ofo|ky; dksVk }kjk vk;ksftr lwpuk izks|ksfxdh esa jktLFkku LVsV
lfVZfQdsV bu bUQkjes'ku VsduksykWth ¼RS-CIT½ dkslZ dk
izek.k&i=A""
"12- ijh{kk 'kqYd tek djkus ,oa vkWuykbZu vkosnu i= Hkjus dh
vof/k &
¼d½ ijh{kk 'kqYd jkT; ds fu/kkZfjr bZ&fe= fd;ksLd] tu lqfo/kk dsUnz
¼C.S.C.½] usV cSfdax] ,-Vh-,e- de MsfcV dkMZ ,oa ØsfMV dkMZ ds ek/;e
ls fnukad 10-11-2015 ls 09-12-2015 dks jkf= 12 cts ¼bZ&fe= ,oa tu
lqfo/kk dsUnz ij jkf= 8 cts½ rd tek djk;k tk ldrk gSA
¼[k½ vkWuykbZu vkosnu i= fnukad 10-11-2015 ls 10-12-2015 dks jkf=
12 cts rd cksMZ dh osclkbV ij Hkjsa tk ldrs gS ¼blds mijkar fyad
fuf"Ø; gks tk;sxk½ vkosndksa dks lykg nh tkrh gS fd vkWuykbZu
vkosnu dh vfUre fnukad dk bUrtkj fd, fcuk le; lhek ds Hkhrj
vkWuykbZu vkosnu djsA"
"5- vkosnd ftuds vkWuykbZu vkosnu i= vfUre fnukad rd cksMZ
dk;kZy; dks iw.kZ lwpuk lfgr izkIr gksaxsa] ,sls vkosndksa dks cksMZ }kjk
vufUre ¼Provisional½ :i esa izos'k fn;k tk,xkA ijh{kk ds fy;s izos'k
&i= tkjh djus dk ;g vfHkizk; ugh gS fd cksMZ }kjk mldh mEehnokjh
vfUre :i ls lgh eku yh xbZ gS vFkok mEehnokj }kjk vkosnu&i= esa
dh x;h izfo"V;k¡ cksMZ }kjk lgh eku yh xbZ gSA cksMZ }kjk vkosndksa dh
ik=rk dh tk¡p vyx ls dh tk;sxhA vLFkkbZ :i ls p;u gksus dh
fLFkfr esa vkosnd dks foLr`r vkosnu nks izfr;ksa esa leLr vko';d
nLrkostksa dh Loizekf.kr QksVks izfr;ksa ds lkFk cksMZ dk;kZy; esa izLrqr
djuk gksxkA cksMZ }kjk mEehnokj dh ik=rk dh tkap djrs le; rFkk
ewy izys[kksa ls ik=rk dh tkap djrs le; ;fn vk;q] 'kS{kf.kr ;ksX;rk
rFkk vuqlwfpr tkfr@vuqlwfpr tutkfr @fiNM+k oxZ@fo'ks"k fiNM+k
oxZ ,oa HkwriwoZ lSfud ;k vU; 'krksZa dh ikyuk ugha djus ds dkj.k ;fn
vH;FkhZ dh vik=rk dk irk pyrk gS rks bl ijh{kk gsrq mldh
mEehnokjh fdlh Hkh Lrj ij jn~n dh tk ldrh gS ftldh leLr
ftEesnkjh Lo;a vH;FkhZ dh gksxh A"""
The Board issued a corrigendum on 30.11.2015, wherein it
(17 of 41)
[ CW-11309/2017]
was mentioned that the advertisement which was issued on
04.11.2015, at page 6 at point No.7, after "Rajasthan State
Certificate in Information Technology (RS-CIT) Course Certificate",
a new clause was added to provide an option in the application
form to the students appearing in 12 th Board and Final year of
Computer diploma and only those candidates will be considered
eligible who possess the qualification upto the date of the
preliminary examination. The relevant corrigendum is reproduced
as under:-
"jktLFkku v/khuLFk ,oa ea=kyf;d lsok p;u cksMZ] t;iqj
jkT; d`f"k izcU/k laLFkku ifjlj] nqxkZiqjk] t;qij
Øekad%Ik-14¼19½RSMSSB/vFkZuk@iVokjh@2015@352&61 fnukad% 30@11@2015
iVokj lh/kh HkrhZ ijh{kk&2015
la'kksf/kr&foKfIr
jktLFkku v/khUkLFk ,oa e=kyf;d lsok p;u cksMZ }kjk iVokjh ds 4400 inksa
ij lh/kh HkrhZ ijh{kk&2015 gsrq foKfIr fnukad 04-11-2015 dks tkjh dh xbZ foKfIr
ds ist la[;k 6 ds fcUnq 7- ik=rk ,oa 'kS{kf.kr ;ksX;rk esa vafre iafDr ÞjktLFkku
LVsV lfVZfQdsV bu bUQkjes'ku VsDuksykWth ¼RS-CIT½ dkslZ dk izek.k&i=AÞ ds uhps
fuEukuqlkj izko/kku tksMs+ tksr gS%&
ist la[;k&6 "iVokfj;ksa ds fjDr inksa ds fy;s vk;ksftr iVokjh HkrhZ ijh{kk
ds vkosnu i=ksa esa 12 oha cksMZ ,oa dEI;wVj fMIyksek vafre o"kZ esa
fcUnq la[;k&7
v/;;ujr fo/kkfFkZ;ksa ds laca/k esa fodYi miyC/k djkus gsrq ;g
fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS fd ftu vH;fFkZ;ksa }kjk izkjafHkd ijh{kk frFkh
rd mDr ;ksX;rk izkIr dj yh tkrh gS rks mUgsa bl ijh{kk esa
lfEefyr gksus dk ik= ekuk tk;sxkA"
The Board conducted the preliminary examination on
13.02.2016 and declared the result of the said examination on
17.03.2016.
It is alleged in the writ petitions that there were some
(18 of 41)
[ CW-11309/2017]
dispute regarding categoriwise declaration of the result and due to
litigation, travelling upto Supreme Court, final result of the
preliminary examination was declared on 02.12.2016.
The Board conducted the main examination on 24.12.2016
and finally, the result of main examination was declared on
01.06.2017.
The petitioners raised grievance that they were in possession
of RS-CIT certificate prior to date of main written examination i.e.
24.12.2016 but not at the time of preliminary examination. The
petitioners have a further grievance that after declaration of the
result, their marks are more than cut off marks in their category
but their candidature has not been considered as they did not
possess the requisite RS-CIT course certificate prior to the
preliminary examination. The common grievance of the petitioners
is that the qualification possessed by a candidate is required to be
considered on the day of the written examination which is the
main written examination and on basis thereof, merit should be
prepared. The petitioners' grievance is that the preliminary
examination was only to short-list the candidates having no role
whatsoever in preparing the merit list and as such, the action of
the respondents in not considering RS-CIT course certificate as
requisite educational qualification because it was possessed after
preliminary examination but prior to main written examination, is
nothing but an arbitrary action of the respondents in ignoring the
meritorious candidates.
Reply has been filed by the respondents-State. The
(19 of 41)
[ CW-11309/2017]
respondents have raised preliminary objections about
maintainability of the writ petitions on the ground of laches,
estoppel, acquiescence, non-impleadment of selected candidates
as parties. The respondents have stated that while issuing revised
advertisement/corrigendum dated 30.11.2015, a provision was
inserted in Clause-7 of the said advertisement whereby decision
was taken to provide an option in the application form to the
students appearing in the 12th Board and final year of Computer
diploma that only those candidates will be considered eligible who
possess the qualification upto the date of preliminary examination.
It is averred that since the petitioners did not possess the
requisite qualification upto the above specific cut-off date, they
were ineligible and marks obtained by them in the main
examination are of no relevance. The respondents have further
explained that sub-clause (8) of Clause 5 of the advertisement
dated 04.11.2015 was only in respect of candidates of scheduled
areas and it did not apply to the other candidates who were from
other than scheduled areas. The respondents have further
submitted in the reply that in respect of non-scheduled areas, no
cut-off of date is provided in the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land
Records) Rules, 1957 and as such, a candidate is required to
possess the requisite educational qualification with reference to
the date mentioned in advertisement calling for the application
forms. It has been mentioned in the reply that cut-off date was
13.02.2016, the date of preliminary examination, and if any of the
petitioner was not holding the certificate of RS-CIT, they all were
(20 of 41)
[ CW-11309/2017]
ineligible. The respondents also stated in the reply that if the
petitioners' contention is accepted that their qualification is to be
considered on the basis of main examination, it would prejudice all
those candidates who did not apply in pursuance of the aforesaid
advertisement and corrigendum, knowing that they will not be
able to acquire the certificate of RS-CIT uptil the date of main
examination.
It would be pertinent to refer to the relevant rules regarding
recruitment for the post of Patwari and various enactments
concerning the present issue. The State Government exercising
the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 261 of the
Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 has made Rajasthan Land
Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957. The Rules of 1957 were
amended before the advertisement issued vide notification dated
12.08.2015. The relevant rules are reproduced hereunder:-
"1. Short title and commencement.- (1) These rules
may be called the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records)
(Second Amendment) Rules, 2015.
(2) They shall come into force from the date of their
publication in the Official Gazette."
"2. Amendment of Rule 4.- In rule 4 of the Rajasthan
Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957, hereinafter
referred to as the said rules.-
xxx xxx xxx
(iii) the existing sub-rule (cc) shall be substituted by the
following, namely:-
"(cc) The Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial
Service Selection Board shall prepare the list of the
selected candidates and declare the result and send
the same to the Board of Revenue. The Board of
Revenue shall prepare department and district-wise
merit list of selected candidates strictly in accordance
with the order of preference of the candidates.
Subject to the availability of vacancies. The list so
(21 of 41)
[ CW-11309/2017]
prepared by the Board of Revenue shall be sent to the
Collector concerned and Colonization Commissioner,
for appointment. The appointment shall be given as
probationer trainee for two years. After appointing the
selected candidates as probationer trainee send them
to the Patwar Training School through the Director.,
Revenue Research and Training Institute for
admission. The Revenue Research and Training
Institute shall conduct division-wise training for
probationer trainees under the supervision/ direction
of the Board of Revenue in the Patwar Training
Schools. The Revenue Research and Training Institute
shall also arrange temporary Patwar Training Schools."
"4. Amendment of Rule 273.- In rule 273 of the said
rules.-
(i) in existing sub-rule (1), for the existing expression
"District wise/Department wise by the Collector/
Colonization Commissioner under supervision of the
Board", the expression "by the Rajasthan Subordinate
and Ministerial Service Selection Board" shall be
substituted:
(ii) After the existing sub-rule (1) and before the existing
sub-rule (2) the following sub-rule (1A) shall be
inserted, namely:-
"(1A) Direct recruitment to the post of Patwari shall
be held at least once in a year unless the Board of
Revenue decides that a direct recruitment shall not be
held in any particular year.";
(iii) in the existing clause (ii) of sub-rule (2).-
(a) for the existing expression "The Board shall
notify", the expression "The Rajasthan Subordinate
and Ministerial Service Selection Board shall notify"
shall be substituted;
(b) the existing expression "District
wise/Department wise" shall be deleted;
(c) for the existing expression "prescribe by the
Board", the expression "specified by the Rajasthan
Subordinate and Ministerial Service Selection Board.
In the application form preference of district and
department shall also be obtained from, the candidate
by the Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial Service
Selection Board" shall be substituted;
(d) for the existing expression "determined by the
Board", the expression "determined by the Rajasthan
Subordinate and Ministerial Service Selection Board",
shall be substituted.
(22 of 41)
[ CW-11309/2017]
(iv) the existing clause (iv) of sub-rule (2) shall be
substituted by the following, namely:-
"(iv) Competitive examination shall be conducted by
the Rajsthan Subordinate and Ministerial Service
Selection Board."
(v) the existing clause (vii) of sub-rule (2) shall be
substituted by the following, namely:-
"(vii) Recruitment on the post of Patwari in
scheduled area shall be as per the provisions of
recruitment rules applicable in such area."
(vi) the existing clause (I) of sub-rule (4) shall be
substituted by the following, namely:-
"(i) The applicant must have a working knowledge of
Hindi written in Devnagri Script, knowledge of
Rajasthan Culture and following qualifications,
namely:-
(I) He must have passed the 10+2/ Senior
Secondary School Examination or any other
equivalent examination, recognized by the
Government: and
(II) 'O' or higher level certificate course conducted
by the Department of Electronics Accreditation of
Computer Course (DOEACC) under the control of
the Department of Electronics, Government of
India;
or
Computer Operator and Programming Assistant
(COPA)/Data Preparation and Computer Software
(DPCS) certificate course organized under the
National Council on Vocational Training/State
Council on Vocational Training Scheme;
or
Diploma in computer Science/Computer
Applications from a University established by law in
India or from an Institution recognized by the
Government;
or
Diploma in Computer Science and Engineering from
Government Recognized Polytechnic Institution;
or
Rajasthan State Certificate Course in Information
Technology (RSCIT) conducted by Vardhman
Mahaveer Open University, Kota under control of
Rajasthan Knowledge Corporation Limited."
(vii) in sub-rule (4), after the existing clause (I), so
(23 of 41)
[ CW-11309/2017]
substituted and before the existing clause (ii), the
following new clause (ia) shall be inserted, namely:-
"(ia) Duration for examination of direct
recruitment on the post of Patwari shall be three
hours. The pattern of questions shall be objective
type from the following subjects. Each question
shall carry 2 marks.
Subject Maximum Marks
1. General Knowledge 100
2. Mathematics 100
3. Basic Computer Knowledge 50
4. General Hindi 50
The Syllabus of the Examination shall be as given below:-
Subject Syllabus
General Knowledge 10+2/Senior Secondary Level
Mathematics 10/Secondary Level.
Basic Computer Knowledge 1. Characteristics of
Computers.
2. Computer Organization
including RAM, ROM, File
System Input Devices
Computer Software-
Relationship between Hardware
and Software;
3. Operating System.
4. MS-Office (exposure of
Word, Excel/spread sheet,
Power Point)
5. Information Technology and
Society- Indian IT Act Digital
Signatures Application of
information Technology in Govt.
for e-Governance Mobile/Smart
phones, information kiosks.
General Hindi 10+2/Senior Secondary
level."
Rule 347-A of the Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957
(24 of 41)
[ CW-11309/2017]
reads as under:-
"347-A. Regulation of pay, Leave, allowance,
Pension etc.-Except as otherwise provided in these
rules, the pay allowances pension, leave and other
conditions of service of the Patwaris, Inspectors Land
Records and Sadar Qanungos shall be regulated by the
following rules as amended from time to time:--
1. The Rajasthan Travelling Allowance Rules, 1971:
2. The Rajasthan Civil Services (Unification of Pay
Scales) Rules, 1950.
3. The Rajasthan Civil Services (Rationalization of Pay
Scales) Rules 1956:
4. The Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951:
5. The Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules,
1961:
6. The Rajasthan Civil Services (New Pay) Rules,
1968:
7. Any other rules prescribing general conditions of
service madeby the appropriate authority under the
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and
for the time being in force.
8. Any other general order or amendment in the
Rajasthan Subordinate Services (Recruitment and other
Services Conditions) Rules 1960, issued by the
Department of Personnel shall mutatis mutandis be
applicable unless any order to the contrary is issued by
the Government."
It is also relevant to mention Rule 15 of the Rajasthan
Scheduled Areas Subordinate, Ministerial and Class-IV Service
(Recruitment and other Service Conditions), Rules, 2014, which
reads as under:-
"15. Academic and Technical Qualifications and
Experience.- A candidate for direct recruitment to the
post(s) specified in Schedule-I, Schedule-II, Schedule-
III and Schedule-IV and/or any other schedule, as the
case may be, shall possess.-
(i) the qualifications and experience as prescribed in
relevant column(s) of Schedule-I, Schedule-II,
Scheduled-III and Scheduled-IV and/or any other
Scheduled appended to any of these service rules,
as the case may be
(ii) working knowledge of Hindi written in Devnagari
(25 of 41)
[ CW-11309/2017]
script and knowledge of Rajasthani Culture:
Provided that the person who has appeared or is
appearing in the final year examination of the course
which is the requisite educational qualification for the
post as mentioned in the Rules or Schedules for direct
recruitment, shall be eligible to apply for the post but
he/she shall have to submit the proof of having acquired
the requisite educational qualification to the appropriate
selection agency:-
(i) before appearing in the main examination, where
selection is made through two stages of written
examination and interview;
(ii) before appearing in interview where selection is
made through written examination and interview;
and
(iii) before appearing in the written examination or
interview where selection is made through only
written examination or only interview, as the case
may be."
It is also relevant to mention Rule 17 of the Rajasthan
Subordinate Services (Recruitment and other Service Conditions),
Rules, 2001, which reads as under:-
"17. Qualifications.-A candidate for direct recruitment
to the post/posts enumerated in the Schedule shall in
addition to such experience is required, possess:-
(i) the qualification and experience as laid down in
Column No.5 of the Schedule.
(ii) working knowledge of Hindi written in Devnagri
script and knowledge of Rajasthani Culture:
Provided that the person who has appeared or
is appearing in the final year examination of the
course which is the requisite educational qualification
for the post as mentioned in the Schedule for direct
recruitment shall be eligible to apply for the post but
he/she shall have to submit proof of having acquired
the requisite educational qualification to the
appropriate selection agency:-
(i) before appearing in the main examination,
where selection is made through two stages of
written examination and interview;
(ii) before appearing in interview where selection
is made through written examination and
(26 of 41)
[ CW-11309/2017]
interview;
(iii) before appearing in the written examination or
interview where selection is made through
only written examination or only interview, as
the case may be."
Mr.R.N.Mathur, Senior Advocate for the petitioners has
submitted that Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules,
1957 provides in Rule 347-A that condition of service of the
Patwaris will be regulated by the rules made and amended from
time to time. Mr. Mathur has submitted that as per sub-rule (7) of
Rule 347-A, the rules prescribing General Conditions of Service
made by the appointing authority under the proviso to Article 309
of the Constitution of India, shall govern the conditions of service.
He further submits that sub-rule (8) of Rule 347-A provides
general order or amendment in the Rajasthan Subordinate Service
(Recruitment and other Service Conditions) Rules, 1960 issued by
Department of Personnel applies to mutatis mutandis in respect of
selection of Patwari.
Mr. Mathur has submitted that since Rajasthan Subordinate
Service (Recruitment and other Service Conditions) Rules, 1960
have been repealed w.e.f. 02.03.2001 and new Rules of 2001 has
come into force and Rule 17 of the said new Rules provides with
respect to possession of qualification by the candidates and the
proviso specifically provides that candidates who were appearing
in the final examination should also be considered eligible if they
acquire the qualification. Mr. Mathur has submitted that terminal
date of acquiring the educational qualification is the main
examination and not the preliminary examination.
(27 of 41)
[ CW-11309/2017]
Mr.Mathur has further submitted that the preliminary
examination was only screening test and same cannot determine
the eligibility.
The learned counsel has further submitted that the
Rajasthan Scheduled Areas Subordinate, Ministerial & Class-IV
Service (Recruitment and other Service Conditions) Rules, 2014,
which have been made applicable to the TSP area have a pari
materia Rule 15 where academic and technical qualifications of
candidates are considered if such candidates acquire the
educational qualification before appearing in the written
examination when selection is made through only written
examination. Mr. Mathur has submitted that Rule 15 of the Rules
of 2014 and Rule 17 of the Rules of 2001 are pari materia and as
such, the different dates could not have been provided for the TSP
candidates and candidates of other areas and same is
discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Mr.Mathur has submitted that the respondents have been
ignorant while issuing the advertisement and there was confusion
amongst the students about their eligibility as there was reference
of two sets of rules and as such, the benefit should be given to the
candidates who acquired the eligibility at the time of main
examination.
Mr.Mathur has further submitted that the posts are
transferable from scheduled areas to non-scheduled areas and
cadre of Patwari is a common cadre and as such, no discrimination
can be made on geographical division of the candidates. Mr.
(28 of 41)
[ CW-11309/2017]
Mathur has further submitted that basic principle in any selection
is to select the most meritorious candidates and not to oust them
on baseless ground.
Mr.Ajatshatru Mina appearing for the petitioners has
submitted that the written examination in the instant case is the
main examination and possessing the eligibility on that date of
preliminary examination has no relevance and as such, the
petitioners who have acquired requisite qualification before the
main examination cannot be ousted for the purpose of
appointment. Mr.Ajatshatru has further submitted that Court has
to adopt the liberal constructions of statute and intention of
parties is to be seen and Court is required to secure the object of
an statute in such a way that it benefits the ultimate person who
has to secure the job.
Mr.Ajatshatru has further submitted that all the recruitments
are governed by omnibus rule and there should be uniformity in
making selection, by permitting such candidates who possess the
requisite educational qualification before appearing in the main
examination.
Per contra, Mr.Rajendra Prasad, Additional Advocate General
has raised preliminary objections about laches and delay in
preferring the writ petitions before the Court. The learned counsel
submits that once the advertisement was issued on 04.11.2015
and last date was 10.12.2015, all the petitioners participated in
the preliminary examination and they waited for the result and
then they have filed the present batch of writ petitions.
(29 of 41)
[ CW-11309/2017]
Mr.Rajendra Prasad submits that if any of the petitioner had
grievance about condition of possessing the requisite educational
qualification and eligibility at the time of filling the application
form, they ought to have immediately challenged the same.
Mr. Prasad has further raised the preliminary objection that
all the petitioners have acquiesced with the condition and once
they have participated in the selection process with open eyes,
they are estopped to challenge the condition which was prescribed
in the advertisement and in the corrigendum.
Mr. Rajendra Prasad has further submitted that the
petitioners want to destabilize the entire process of selection and
they are estopped to challenge after participating in the selection
process. The learned counsel has further submitted that no
selected candidate is made party and their rights would definitely
be affected by the outcome of the writ petition. In absence of the
selected candidate, writ petitions are not maintainable at all.
Mr. Rajendra Prasad has submitted that the petitions also
suffered from inherent defects of lack of pleadings as most of the
petitioners have not disclosed their date of passing the RS-CIT
certificate course or when they had appeared in the said
examination. The petitions are not disclosing the complete facts
and as such, requires to be dismissed.
Mr.Rajendra Prasad has submitted that the very purpose of
issuing the notification dated 30.11.2015 was for the candidates
who were undergoing longer duration of course as some of the
computer diploma courses were of more than one year and as
(30 of 41)
[ CW-11309/2017]
such, the benefit was extended to those candidates who were
either appearing in the 12 th Board examination or in final year of
Computer diploma programme.
Mr. Rajendra Prasad has submitted that in the relevant Land
Records Rule 273 when there is no date prescribed for possessing
the requisite eligibility in educational qualification, the last date
given in the advertisement has to be taken as the cut off date for
adjudging their eligibility.
Mr. Rajendra Prasad has submitted that either of the Rules of
1960 or 2001 will not govern the eligibility as the field is occupied
by statutory Rajasthan Land Records Rules and entire exercise is
to be carried out as per the said rules.
As far as allegation of territorial discrimination is concerned,
Mr.Prasad submits that Article 244 of the Constitution of India
provides for administration of Scheduled areas and provisions of
5th Schedule shall apply to the administration and control of the
Scheduled areas. Mr. Prasad submits that in 5 th Schedule, the
Governor has been given power to apply particular Act of
legislation of the State in Scheduled areas and further the
Governor has been conferred power to make regulations for the
peace and good government of any area in a State which is for the
time being a Scheduled area. Mr. Prasad submits that by virtue of
overriding effect as conferred by provisions of Constitution, the
special cadre can be created for scheduled areas and it cannot be
faulted on the anvil of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Mr. Prasad has submitted that ultimately the cut-off date fixed for
(31 of 41)
[ CW-11309/2017]
adjudging the eligibility has been the same for all the candidates
and as such, no fault can be found.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and looked
into the entire material placed on record.
The first issue with regard to application of Rule 347-A of the
Land Records Rules, 1957 is required to be adjudged. Rule 273
provides for complete procedure for making selection of
candidates for admission to the Patwari school by holding a
competitive examination which is required to be conducted by the
Board. The said Rule 273 has been amended in the year 2015
before the recruitment process has been undertaken. The
amendment made in Rule 4(cc) provides that the Rajasthan
Subordinate and Ministerial Service Selection Board shall select
the candidates after holding of the examination. There is
amendment in Rule 273 and qualification has been prescribed in
sub-rule (4) of Rule 273. Syllabus is also provided of the said
examination. In the opinion of the Court, when Rule 273 deals
with the complete procedure and eligibility too being prescribed
for holding the examination, application of Rule 347-A will be of no
significance.
Rule 347-A deals with service conditions of the employees
who are appointed, as how their pay, leave, allowance will be
governed. Sub-rule (7) of Rule 347-A provides for General
Conditions of service made by the appropriate authority under the
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The Court finds
that sub-rule (7) of Rule 347-A will not be attracted in the present
(32 of 41)
[ CW-11309/2017]
case as has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners
that by invoking sub-rule (8) of Rule 347-A, the amendment made or general order issued in the Rajasthan Subordinate Services (Recruitment and other Service Conditions), Rules 1960 will apply mutatis mutandis, is also without any substance. The Court finds that the post of Patwari is included in the Land Revenue Act and complete mechanism is provided for filling the post. The entire selection process has been enumerated in Section 273 of the Land Record Rules and as such, application of Rule 347-A cannot be made applicable in the instant case.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that Rules of 1960 being repealed, the new Rules of 2001 will govern the field, is without any substance. The Court finds that the Rules of 2001 or Rule 15 of the Rules of 2014 will not come into play. The post of Patwari is not included and incorporated in the Rajasthan Subordinate Service (Recruitment and other Service Conditions), Rules 1960 or newly promulgated Rule of 2001.
The Court finds that as far as appointment in Rajasthan scheduled areas is concerned, the Rules of 2014 provides that a candidate for direct recruitment to post specified in Schedule-I, Schedule-II, Schedule-III and Schedule-IV and/or any other schedule, as the case may be, shall possess the qualifications and experience if he has appeared or is appearing in the final year examination of the course, which is requisite educational (33 of 41) [ CW-11309/2017] qualification for the posts and can apply but has to submit the proof of having acquired the requisite qualification to the appropriate Selection Agency for appearing in the written examination where selection is made through only written examination. The application of these Rules of 2001 or 2014 will not come into play for the purpose of getting any relaxation of having the qualification before the written examination, if the candidates had appeared in the qualifying examination.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the preliminary examination is only a screening test and the main written examination should be treated as the relevant criteria for adjudging their eligibility, the Court finds that the requirement by the recruiting agency was to see the eligibility of the candidates at the time of submitting the application form.
The corrigendum has extended the benefit to all the candidates to acquire qualification of RS-CIT till holding of preliminary examination. It is also to be kept in mind that the educational qualification in question being possessed by the petitioners is RS-CIT, which is of three months duration. The said course of RS-CIT is run by different authorized institutions by Rajasthan Knowledge Corporation/Agency of the State three times in a year, the said certificate can be obtained by the candidate accordingly. Looking to the duration of the course/certificate, it is not conceivable that the employer has to take into account the appearing of such candidate in said course, if the student has appeared or is appearing in the final examination of the such (34 of 41) [ CW-11309/2017] course.
The purpose of permitting those candidates whose duration is of more than one year, seems to give benefit to those candidates who have written their examination or they are appearing in the final year of examination of the course which is the requisite educational qualification for the post. In a course/certificate which is of three months duration, the claim of the petitioner is wholly unfounded.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.R.N.Mathur, that the advertisement issued by the respondent was also in ignorance of the relevant statutory rules and it created confusion amongst the students about their eligibility by referring two sets of rule, is without substance. The advertisement had clearly mentioned that the recruitment process was undertaken for the post of Patwari for sending them to training under the Rajasthan Land Records Rules, 1957 and since appointments were to be made in the scheduled areas, there was a reference of Rajasthan Scheduled Areas Subordinate, Ministerial and Class-IV Service (Recruitment and other Service Conditions), Rules, 2014. The advertisement has clearly mentioned the requirement of eligibility of the candidates who were to apply in scheduled areas and other conditions were prescribed for the candidates who were to apply in non-scheduled areas.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there has been discrimination between the candidates who were to apply in scheduled ares and in non-scheduled areas, is (35 of 41) [ CW-11309/2017] also without any merit. The respondents have provided in the advertisement that the candidates who were applying in non- scheduled area, they were to have the requisite eligibility and education qualification at the time of filling the application form and the same was extended by the corrigendum upto the holding of preliminary examination. The respondents in Clause-5 of the advertisement had specifically given special instructions to the candidates of scheduled areas and those applicants who were resident of scheduled areas were alone eligible to apply for the post year-marked for scheduled areas. It was specifically provided in sub-clause (3) of Clause 5 that selection of candidates in scheduled areas was to be done as per the Rules of 2014 and whereever there was no specific provision in these rules, the Rajasthan Land Records Rules, 1957 were to apply. The advertisement also provided in sub-clause (8) of Clause-5 of Scheduled areas that candidates who had appeared or who were likely to appear in the final examination of the requisite educational qualification, they were also eligible to apply but they were to tender proof before appearing in the written examination. In view of specific condition mentioned for the scheduled and non- scheduled areas, no fault can be found with the said prescription of condition for scheduled and non-scheduled areas.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have got more marks and they are meritorious qua the other selected candidates and as such, merit cannot be sacrificed, suffice it to say that if the petitioners lack eligibility at (36 of 41) [ CW-11309/2017] the threshold, merely by appearing in the examination and securing higher position it will not confer any right on them.
The submission of Mr.Ajatshatru Mina, Adv. that the main examination is written examination and as such, the candidates' merit should be considered on that basis, the Court finds that while holding the preliminary examination, screening test was conducted to reduce the member of candidates for the purpose of main examination. The marks of screening test may not be of any value when the final result is being prepared, however, the eligibility of candidate at the preliminary examination has its vital importance and the same cannot be diluted.
The submission of the learned counsel that omnibus rule permitting the candidates to participate in the selection process where such candidates are appearing in the final examination, cannot be made applicable in the instant selection. It is a trite law that if selections are governed by statutory rules which are framed by the employer/State Government (in the instant case, when the Land Record Rules have been framed by virtue of power given in the Land Revenue Act) the general provisions or service conditions which have been made applicable to different service rules under proviso to Article 309, cannot be made applicable in the present selection.
The submission of learned counsel for the State, Mr.Rajendra Prasad, that relaxation for acquiring education qualification is given for the courses which have been a longer duration and particularly, in the instant case by issuing corrigendum, benefit (37 of 41) [ CW-11309/2017] was extended to the candidates who were to appear in 12 th Board Examination and Final Year Computer diploma course, is wroth accepting looking to the purpose for which such corrigendum was issued, as it fulfills the object.
The learned counsel Mr. Prasad has also submitted that invoking of Rule 347-A is not relevant in the instant case and if the field is already occupied by the Land Records Rules, no benefit can be derived from other Rules of 2001 or 2014. The Court finds that the field of regulating the recruitment for the post of Patwari is already occupied by the Land Record Rules 273 and as such, no other provision can be made applicable.
Mr.Prasad submits that if there is no date prescribed for adjudging the eligibility, it is the last date given in the advertisement, should be taken as the cut-off date for adjudging the eligibility.
The Court finds that in catena of cases, the Apex Court has held that if rules do not provide any specific date for adjudging the eligibility, the last date of submission of application form can be taken as the cut-off/relevant date for adjudging the eligibility.
In the instant case, the respondents-employer had initially notified that candidate must be possessing requisite eligibility and education qualification at the time of filling the application form, however, the same was extended by the corrigendum giving chance to candidates to acquire the eligibility upto the date of preliminary examination. The Court does not find any fault in such decision of the State Government.
(38 of 41) [ CW-11309/2017] The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the scheduled areas are required to be governed separately as Rules of 2014 have been promulgated to make selections in the scheduled areas. The provisions contained in scheduled areas or prescribing different eligibility cannot be faulted or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Court finds that Rules of 2014 have not been put to question by any person and as such, if the said rules have been promulgated by the State Government for making recruitment in the scheduled areas by prescribing eligibility, no fault can be found.
The Court also finds that the preliminary objections raised by the respondents also required to be adjudicated. The petitioners have filed these petitioners after participating in the preliminary examination and they have waited till declaration of the results and then, have approached the Court. If the petitioners had any grievance about the condition prescribed in the advertisement, they ought to have challenged the same at the initial stage. The cause of action to the petitioners had arisen on the date when the advertisement was issued. The petitioners are guilty of approaching the Court belatedly and as such, they are also not entitled for any relief on this count also.
The petitioners are further estopped to challenge the selection process as they themselves have participated in the entire selection process and having taken benefit of the condition of eligibility, which was relaxed by corrigendum, they are estopped to challenge the same.
(39 of 41) [ CW-11309/2017] The issue of non-joinder of parties i.e. selected candidate, as party before the Court is also required to be considered by this Court. The petitioners have only been declared successful in the main written examination, however, those candidates who have been selected and have also been appointed, their rights are definitely going to be affected by the prayer sought by the petitioners.
The Apex Court time and again has consistently laid down the principle that in absence of selected candidates, petitions cannot succeed. It is also relevant to note that at least, some of the candidates in a representative capacity should be there to defend their rights as after appointment, rights of such candidates are crystallized.
The learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in D.B.Special Appeal Writ No.674/2016 (The Rajasthan Public Service Commission Vs. Shobha Mutha and other connected appeals, decided on 05.01.2017. The learned counsel has submitted that proviso (iii) to Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Educational Service Rules, 1970 uses the words "appearing in the written examination where selection is through written examination" is being interpreted by the Division Bench and it has been held by the Court that eligibility as required under Clause (iii) of proviso to Rule 11 of the Education Services Rules has to be understood as before the completion of the written examination in a composite sense meaning the date the last examination was held.
(40 of 41) [ CW-11309/2017] The aforesaid judgment passed by the Division Bench does not apply to the present controversy as Hon'ble Division Bench was considering the provision of written examination and if there were more than one paper of any written examination, the Court has interpreted that last examination which is held, the same has to be considered for the purpose of adjudging the eligibility. In the instant case, the certificate course of RS-CIT is only of three months duration and there are no different papers/written examination and as such, the judgment of Division Bench does not apply in the instant case.
The learned counsel for the petitioners have referred to a judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B.Special Appeal Writ No.1373/2016 (Rajasthan Public Service Commission Vs. Kamlesh Kataria & Ors.), decided on 10.04.2017 wherein the Court followed the same decision passed in Rajasthan Public Service Commission Vs. Shobha Mutha (supra) and came to the conclusion that once the examination date was changed and it was held subsequently, the candidate was required to be considered eligible by change of the date of examination. The said judgment is of no assistance to the petitioners.
The law on the issue of considering the RS-CIT certificate as eligibility condition has also been decided in D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.793/2017 (Dhuleshwar Dindor Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and other connected appeals, vide judgment dated 12.09.2017. The Division Bench in the said judgment has considered that if a date by which educational qualifications have (41 of 41) [ CW-11309/2017] to be attained is notified, the same is required to be adhered to. The Division Bench has upheld the decision of the learned Single wherein it has been held that notwithstanding the merit position of the candidates, they cannot be offered appointment to the post of LDC on account of acquiring RS-CIT certificate much after the date when the appellants were called for document verification.
The same view of Division Bench has also been followed by another Division Bench in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1015/2017 (Sangeeta Soni Vs. State of Raj & Ors., decided on 03.10.2017.
In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that writ petitions are devoid of merit and the same deserve to be dismissed.
Dismissed accordingly.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR)J. NK 263 to 268, 176, 177, 200, 191, 199, 204, 217, 248, 247, 262,175, 181