Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Harish Parihar vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:26084) on 18 August, 2023
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2023:RJ-JD:26084]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18378/2022
Harish Parihar S/o Lakha Ram, Aged About 46 Years, R/o. Village
Ganwara, Post Neepal, Tehsil Rani, District Pali (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
(Panchayati Raj), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. Additional Commissioner, Rural Development And
Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Pali, Rajasthan.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
5. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jalore, Rajasthan.
6. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Udaipur, Rajasthan.
7. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
8. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Rajsamand,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Om Prakash Kumawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG assisted by
Mr. Piyush Bhandari
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order 18/08/2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers :-
"i). The action of the respondents while not countersigning the experience certificate (Annexure-4) of the petitioner for the post of (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 04:32:06 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:26084] (2 of 5) [CW-18378/2022] Instructor and depriving him to get bonus marks towards the total experience (more than 3 years) gained by the petitioner as being awarded to other aspirants serving on various posts under various schemes of State Government, may kindly be declared per se illegal, unjust, arbitrary, bad in the eye of law and further violative to Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India; and/or
ii). The respondent Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Pali may kindly be directed to countersign the experience certificate of petitioner (Annexure-4) towards the experience gained by the petitioner on the post of Instructor; and/or
iii). The respondents may kindly be directed to provide bonus marks to the petitioner towards the total experience (more than 3 years) gained by the petitioner for recruitment on the post of LDC, invite the petitioner for document verification and offer appointment to the petitioner on the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC), if the petitioner comes, with all consequential benefits; and/or"
Briefly the facts in the matter are that the petitioner having the requisite qualification of Senior Secondary along with RS-CIT in Computer applied for the post of LDC in pursuance of the advertisement issued in the year 2013. The petitioner also served in the Panchayati Raj Department on the post of Instructor as reflected in his experience certificate dated 14.09.2015 (Annex.4). Since, the experience certificate issued by the Panchayati Raj Department on 14.09.2015 is not being considered by the respondents for grant of bonus marks, hence, the present writ petition has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that as per the criteria for selection mentioned in the advertisement, the petitioner is entitled for grant of bonus marks. He submits that (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 04:32:06 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:26084] (3 of 5) [CW-18378/2022] since the petitioner has performed the duties of Instructor in the Lok Jumbish Pariyojana(Scheme) for the State Government, the petitioner is entitled for grant of bonus marks. He, therefore, prays that the present writ petition may be allowed and the respondents may be directed to consider and grant bonus marks to the petitioner on the basis of experience certificate issued to him on 14.09.2015.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the post of Instructor is not reflected in Clause No.11 of the advertisement in the year 2013 as well as Rule 273 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. He further submits that in Clause No.11(A) of the advertisement, exhaustive list of the posts on which the persons have performed the work, has been mentioned for grant of bonus marks, however, the post of Instructor is not mentioned in the same. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to get the bonus marks in pursuance of the experience certificate issued to him on 14.09.2015 (Annex.4). He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be dismissed.
I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the relevant record of the case.
The short controversy involved in the present case is as to whether the petitioner who had worked as Instructor in the Lok Jumbish Pariyojana(Scheme) is entitled to get the benefit of bonus marks similar to the posts as mentioned in Clause No.11(A) of the advertisement of 2013.
This Court vide order dated 27.04.2023 directed the petitioner to submit a rejoinder/affidavit/submissions before this Court and the material to show the nature of duties performed by (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 04:32:06 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:26084] (4 of 5) [CW-18378/2022] him. Time was also granted to the petitioner on 16.05.2023, 01.06.2023 and lastly on 06.07.2023 to file the rejoinder/affidavit/submissions reflecting the nature of duties performed by the petitioner. Again on 24.07.2023, the matter was listed but the same was adjourned for 08.08.2023.
Despite four opportunities having been granted to the petitioner by this Court, the petitioner has not placed on record any rejoinder/affidavit/submissions to show the nature of duties performed by the Instructor of Lok Jumbish Pariyojana(Scheme). Since, no information/details with regard to the nature of the duties performed by the Instructor are produced by the petitioner despite number of opportunities granted to him, therefore, it cannot be assumed that an Instructor in the Lok Jumbish Pariyojana(Scheme) had performed the same duties as have been performed by the persons on the posts mentioned in the Clause- 11 of the advertisement of 2013. The arguments of the learned counsel that the work done by the petitioner in Lok Jumbish Pariyojana(Scheme) is under the Panchayati Raj Department and, therefore, all the schemes of the Panchayati Raj Department are covered under the Rule itself is noted to be rejected on the ground that for the post of LDC, the work of the similar nature is a relevant criteria and since, the petitioner has not submitted anything about the nature of his job, therefore, he is not entitled to get the bonus marks on the experience certificate produced by him.
This Court is not persuaded to accept the submissions made by the petitioner for the reason that for selection to the post of LDC, the respondents have categorically desired to give the (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 04:32:06 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:26084] (5 of 5) [CW-18378/2022] benefit to the persons who have performed similar nature of duties. The post on which such duties have been performed by the candidates have been reflected in the Clause No.11 of the advertisement. Since, there is nothing on record to show that the Instructor performs similar nature of duties as has been performed by the persons whose posts have been reflected in Clause No.11 of the advertisement, this Court is not inclined to accept the submissions made by the petitioner.
In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition lacks merits and the same is hereby dismissed.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 27-Sunils/-
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 04:32:06 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)