Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Rituraj Saini S/O Shri Bhanwar Lal Saini vs The State Of Rajasthan on 5 May, 2022
Author: Inderjeet Singh
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 30/2019
1. Rituraj Saini S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Saini, Aged About 32
Years, By Caste Saini, R/o Azad Chowk, Behind Post
Office, Narena, Tehsil Phulera, District Jaipur, (Rajasthan)
2. Ajay Kuamar Gawaria S/o Shri Birju Kuamr, Aged About
30 Years, By Caste Gawaria, R/o- Village Kachrida, Ward
No. 14, Banjaron Ka Mohalla, Tehsil Phulera, District
Jaipur, (Rajasthan)
3. Akhe Ram Choudhary S/o Shri Govind Ram Choudhary,
Aged About 33 Years, By Jat, R/o Village Mangalwara,
Post Seva, District Jaipur, (Rajasthan)
4. Smt. Meena Jain, W/o Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, Aged
About 34 Years, R/o Oswal Colony, Narena Road, Dudu,
District Jaipur, (Rajasthan)
5. Deepak Kumar Cheepa S/o Shri Krishankant Cheepa,
Aged About 32 Years, By Caste Cheepa, R/o Near Puran
Showroom, Dr. Bhindas Gali, Plot No. 157, Cheepon Ka
Mohalla, Sanganer, District Jaipur, (Rajasthan)
6. Sushma Prasad D/o Shri Sugreev Prasad, Aged About 35
Years, R/o A-63, Krishi Vihar Badarwass, Gopal Pura By
Pass, Ajmer Road, Jaipur. (Rajasthan)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, To The Government And Commissioner,
Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jaipur.
----Respondents
Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 27463/2018
1. Mohanlal Gochar S/o Shri-Heera Lal Gochar, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village- Pidawa Road, Sunel Tehsile- Pidawa, Dist- Jhalawar, (Raj.).
(Downloaded on 07/05/2022 at 09:10:31 PM)(2 of 19) [CW-30/2019]
2. Sohan Lal Gochar S/o Shri- Heera Lal Gochar, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village- Pidawa Road, Sunel Tehsile- Pidawa, Dist- Jhalawar, (Raj.).
----Petitioners Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary To The Government And Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jhalawar.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 262/2019 Sunil S/o Shri- Chhaju Ram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o- Near Rani Satti Mandir, Ward No-16, Chirawa, Tehsile- Chirawa, Dist- Jhunjhunu, (Raj.)
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary To The Government And Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jhunjhunu.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 911/2019 Dinesh Kumar Kalal S/o Shri Ratiram Kalal, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village And Post Chachhalav, Tehsil Pindawa, District Jhalawar
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Rural And Panchayati Raj Govt. Of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Chief Executive Officer Cum Member Secretary, Zila Parishad Jhalawar (Downloaded on 07/05/2022 at 09:10:31 PM) (3 of 19) [CW-30/2019]
3. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Pindawa District Jhalawar
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1558/2019
1. Sher Singh Meena S/o Shri Guljari Lal Meena, Aged About 32 Years, By Caste Meena, Resident Of Village Ratanpura, Post Neemla, Tehsil Ramgarh, Distt. Alwar.
2. Mamta Devi Singh Chauhan Daughter Of Shri Devi Singh, W/o Shri Manvendra Singh, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Vpo, Mundawar District Alwar.
3. Anjubala Yadav D/o Shri Rameshwar Singh Yadav, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Tehsil Kishangarhbas, Distt. Alwar.
4. Nisha D/o Shri Kishan Chand Arora, W/o Shri Pawan Gandhi, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Gandhi Life Care Ganj, Road Kishangarhbas, Distt. Alwar.
5. Manoj Kumar Barodiya S/o Shri Sohan Lal Barodiya, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Vpo Harsoli Tehsil Kotkasim, Distt. Alwar.
6. Gajendra Singh Gupta S/o Shri Omprakash Gupta, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Vpo Mundana Tehsil Tijara. Alwar
7. Shyam Sunder Agarwal S/o Shri Ratan Lal Agarwal, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Sanjay Agarwal Dal Mill, Near Khurana Garden, Bypass Road, Kishangarhbas, Distt. Alwar.
8. Digendra Gulpadiya S/o Shri Yatendra Gulpadiya, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Gulpadiya Sadan Ramji Gate Kaman Distt. Bharatpur.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through The Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Alwar.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bharatpur.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1779/2019
1. Giriraj Patidar S/o Shri Prabhu Lal, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village And Post Dharoniya, Tehsil Pirawa, District (Downloaded on 07/05/2022 at 09:10:31 PM) (4 of 19) [CW-30/2019] Jhalawar.
2. Kamlesh Kumar S/o Onkar Lal Mewaram, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village- Puragelana, Tehsil Pirawa, Post Sangriya, District Jhalawar.
----Petitioners Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Rural And Panchayati Raj , Govt. Of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Chief Executive Officer Cum Member Secretary, Zila Parishad, Dholpur.
3. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Saphau, District Dholpur.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2603/2019
1. Rajiv Sharma S/o Gokul Chand Sharma, Aged About 31 Years, B/c Brahmin, R/o Village And Post Medi, Tehsil Wazirpur, District Sawaimadhopur (Raj.) Presently Working On The Post Of Ldc At Zila Parishad Karauli.
2. Manoj Pal S/o Samrath Pal, Aged About 35 Years, B/c Pal, R/o Village Medpura, Post Bookana, Tehsil Sapotara, District Karauli (Raj.) Presently Working On The Post Of Ldc At P.s. Sapotara, District Karauli.
3. Sunil Kumar Agarwal S/o Hanuman Prasad Agarwal, Aged About 30 Years, B/c Mahajan, R/o Village And Post Lorwara, Tehsil And Distrct Sawaimadhopur (Raj.) Presently Working On The Post Of Ldc At P.s. Sapotara, District Karauli.
4. Jagdish Meena S/o Kirodi Lal Meena, Aged About 35 Years, B/c Meena (St), R/o Village And Post Machadi, Tehsil Todabhim, District Karauli (Raj.) Presently Working On The Post Of Ldc At P.s. Todabhim, District Karauli.
5. Surendra Kumar Bhardwaj S/o Mahesh Chandra Sharma, Aged About 34 Years, B/c Brahmin, R/o Ansari Mohalla, Galta Road City Sawaimadhopur, District Sawaimadhopur (Raj.) Presently Working On The Post Of Ldc At P.s. Khandar In District Sawaimadhopur.
6. Pramod Shankar Sharma S/o Gouri Shankar Sharma, Aged About 35 Years, B/c Brahmin, R/o Village And Post (Downloaded on 07/05/2022 at 09:10:31 PM) (5 of 19) [CW-30/2019] Salawat Mohalla, City Sawamadhopur, District Sawaimadhopur (Raj.) Presently Working On The Post Of Ldc At P.s. Khandar, District Sawaimadhopur.
7. Usha Badgotiya D/o Prabhu Lal Badgotiya W/o Ravindra Kumar Mahawar, Aged About 34 Years, B/c Sc, R/o Brahmpuri Mohalla, City Sawaimadhopur, District Sawaimadhopur (Raj.) Presently Working On The Post Of Ldc At G.p. Karmoda, District Sawaimadhopur.
8. Dimpal Sharma W/o Budhi Prakash Sharma, Aged About 36 Years, B/c Brahmin, R/o Village And Post Renwal Manji, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur (Raj.) Presently Working On The Post Of Ldc At G.p. Atunkalan, P.s. And District Sawaimadhopur.
----Petitioners Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Karauli.
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Sawaimadhopur.
5. The Panchayat Samiti Sapotara, District Karauli Through Its Block Development Officer.
6. The Panchayat Samiti Todabhim, District Karauli Through Its Block Development Officer.
7. The Panchayat Samiti Khandar, District Sawaimadhopur Through Its Block Development Officer.
8. The Panchayat Samiti Sawaimadhopur, District Sawaimadhopur Through Its Block Development Officer.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2728/2019 Anil Kumar S/o Shri Mani Ram, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village- Patusari, District- Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, (Downloaded on 07/05/2022 at 09:10:31 PM) (6 of 19) [CW-30/2019] Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary To The Government And Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jhunjhunu.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2923/2019 Ram Kishan Meena S/o Shri Chhotelal Meena, Aged About 42 Years, By Caste Meena Resident Of Village Sau Tehsil Jambaramgarh, Jaipur, Distt. Jaipur.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Alwar.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4804/2019 Sitaram Yadav S/o Shri Kaluram Yadav, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Dhani Sethawali, Post Amarsar, Teh - Shahpura, District Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary To The Government And Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Alwar.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5090/2019 Brahm Singh Bairwa S/o Shri Nathuram Bairva, By Caste Bairva(Sc), Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Village Maharavand, Tehsil Bamanbas, Distt. Sawai Madhopur.
----Petitioner
(Downloaded on 07/05/2022 at 09:10:31 PM)
(7 of 19) [CW-30/2019]
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through The Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sawai Madhopur.
3. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Bauli Distt. Sawai Madhopur.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10647/2019 Chandrakant Sharma S/o Laxmikant Sharma, Aged About 35 Years, R/o- Sitapur Basti, Devi Mandir Ke Pass, Sawalgarh, District Murena (Madhya Pradesh) At Present Working On The Post Of Ldc At Panchayat Samiti Dholpur, District Dholpur.
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Rural And Panchayati Raj. Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Chief Executive Officer, Cum- Member Secretay, Zila Parishad Dholpur.
3. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Dholpur, District Dholpur.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16335/2019 Nathu Singh Son Of Shri Khumana Ram, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Bhairunpura, Tehsil Dhod, District Sikar -332002.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur-302006.
2. Secretary, Department Of Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur-302006.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jaipur Sawai (Downloaded on 07/05/2022 at 09:10:31 PM) (8 of 19) [CW-30/2019] Jai Singh Highway, Bani Park, Jaipur-302016.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1882/2019 Smt. Shama Begum D/o Shri Abdul Basir Khan W/o Sohen Khan, Aged About 38 Years, B/c Muslim (Obc), R/o 21, Guljar Bagh, Shasi Marg, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Raj.) Presently Working On The Post Of Ldc At Gp Makholi Panchayat Samiti Distt. Sawai Mahdopur.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary Rural Development And Panchayti Raj Department, Govt Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary Cum- Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Sawaimahdopur.
4. The Panchayat Samiti Sawaimahdopur District Sawaimahdopur, Through Its Block Development Officer.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7767/2021 Avinash S/o Shri Shyam Lal Yogi, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Shyam Tent House, Mal Godown Road, Gangapur City, Distt. Sawai Madhopur.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sawai Madhopur.
3. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Bauli Distt. Sawai Madhopur.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 07/05/2022 at 09:10:31 PM)
(9 of 19) [CW-30/2019]
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 348/2019
1. Tulsiram S/o Shri-Kewalchand, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Near Ramdv Mandir, Naya Darwaja, Naguar, Dist- Naguar, Raj.
2. Savitri Saran D/o Shri Peetharam Saharan, Aged About 38 Years, R/o House No-89, Shastri Nagar, Manasar Chouraha, Naguar, Dist- Naguar, Raj.
----Petitioners Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary To The Government And Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Naguar.
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naveen Dhuwan Mr. R.K. Gouttam Mr. Raj Kumar Goyal Mr. Aniroodh Mathur Mr. Hanuman Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Dr. Ganesh Parihar, AAG Mr. Pradeep Kalwania, GC Ms. Sunita Satyarthi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order 05/05/2022 Counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue involved in these writ petitions has been considered and decided by the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat Jodhpur in the matter of Babu Lal Meena & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 144/2015) wherein on 01.09.2015 following order was passed;
(Downloaded on 07/05/2022 at 09:10:31 PM)(10 of 19) [CW-30/2019]
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant bunch of writ petitions is preferred by the petitioners prosecuting a common cause of action and praying for an identical relief and are thus being decided together by this common order.
3. The petitioners herein were all engaged on contractual basis on various posts viz. Accounts Assistant etc. in Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MNREGS) being run jointly by the Central Government and the State Government. The initial document which was executed for engaging the petitioners on contract basis was of one year duration whereafter, the contract period was extended from time to time. It is admitted case of the parties that the petitioners have been satisfactorily serving the respondents on contractual basis for last nearly 5 years. In order to provide an avenue of substantive employment to such contractual employees who were serving under NREGS and like schemes for a fairly long period, the State Government, through various Zila Parishads issued districtwise advertisements dated 14.2.2013 under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short, 'the Rules of 1996') inviting applications from the aspirants for appointment on the post of L.D.C. The eligibility criterion for selection under the advertisement was as below :-
Senior Secondary from a recognized board or its equivalent examination, Or "O" or Higher Level Certificate Course conducted by DOEACC under control of the Department of Electronics, Government of India.
Or Computer Operator & Programming Assistant (COPA)/ Data Preparation and Computer Software (DPCS) certificate Organised under National/State Council of Vocational Training Scheme.
Or
Diploma in Computer
Science/Computer Applications from a University established by law in India or from an institution recognized.
Or
Diploma in Computer Science and
Engineering from a Polytechnic
Institute approved from State
Government.
Or
Certified course in R.S.C.I.T.
conducted by Vardhman Mahaveer
Open University, Kota.
(Downloaded on 07/05/2022 at 09:10:31 PM)
(11 of 19) [CW-30/2019]
In addition thereto, the bonus marks were provided for experience gained by the applicants during their contractual stints with the respective Zila Parishads in NREG Scheme or like schemes viz. Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan etc.
4. Being entitled and eligible for appointment, the petitioners herein applied against the advertised posts.
5. A proviso was inserted in Rule 273 of the Rules of 1996 providing that based on the length of service of more than one year as Junior Technical Assistant, Junior Engineer, Gram Rojgar Sahayak, Data Entry Operator, Computer Operator with Machine, Lekha Sahayak, Lower Division Clerk, Coordinator (IEC), Coordinator (Training), Coordinator Supervision or any other posts under any scheme of the department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, the candidate concerned shall be granted bonus marks as specified by the State Government. Under Rule 266 of the Rules of 1996, 95% of the vacancies of L.D.Cs. were to be filled by direct recruitment and 5% by way of promotion. The petitioners have asserted that by introducing this Proviso in Rule 273 for giving bonus marks to the persons already working on similar posts, the Government made known its intention to give weightage to the experienced hands while making recruitment under the Rules of 1996.
6. While the selection process for recruitment on the posts of L.D.Cs. was still continuing, the respondents issued another advertisement dated 25.3.2013 inviting applications from eligible candidates for filling up of various posts including Accounts Assistant on direct recruitment basis. It was clearly provided in the advertisement that the persons already working on the posts of Assistant Accountants (Lekha Sahayak)/ Accountants (Lekhakar)/Assistant Accounts Officer (Sahayak Lekha Adhikari) under the MGNREG Scheme or any other scheme run by the Panchayati Raj Department shall be given upto a maximum of 30 marks for their experience. These posts were advertised under the Rajasthan Rural Development and Panchayati Raj (State and Subordinate) Services Rules, 1998 (for short, 'the Rules of 1998').
7. The merit for the purpose of said recruitment was to be determined at the State level. The criterion for determining the merit for appointment on the post of Accounts Assistant which carries a higher pay scale than the post of L.D.C., was the same as prescribed in the earlier advertisement issued for recruitment of L.D.Cs.(Downloaded on 07/05/2022 at 09:10:31 PM)
(12 of 19) [CW-30/2019]
8. The petitioners claim that they were possessed of the requisite qualifications for appointment to the post of Accounts Assistant as well. Thus, they submitted their complete online application forms seeking recruitment in the said process as well.
9. The merit list for selection on the post of L.D.Cs.
Was published by the respective District Establishment Committees and the petitioners were selected therein.
10. There was an imminent possibility that the applicants who had applied in both the advertisements could secure merit for appointment in both services and thus, in order to avoid complications, the Director, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department issued a letter dated 28.6.2013 which is the bone of contention in these writ petitions. The language of the letter has material bearing for deciding the controversy in hand and is reproduced herein below :-
jktLFkku ljdkj xzkeh.k fodkl ,oa iapk;rh jktLFkku foHkkx ¼iapk;rh jkt foHkkx½ Øekad%,Q%17¼bZ½ijkfo@iz'kk-2@d0fy0lh/kh HkrhZ@13@2015 t;iqj] 28@6@13 eq[; dk;Zdkjh vf/kdkjh] ftyk ifj"kn&leLrA fo"k;%&dfu"B fyfid lh/kh HkrhZ&2013 ds laca/k esaA 1- mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr ys[k gS fd foHkkxh; Lrj ij v/khuLFk lsok ds inksa ij fu;qfDr fn;s tkus¼dfu"B vfHk;Urk] lgk;d dk;Zdze vf/kdkjh] i;Zos{k.k vf/kdkjh ys[kk lgk;d ,oa dEI;wVj vuqns'kd ¼ijk½½ dh dk;Zokgh tkjh gSA ftu lafonk dfeZ;ksa dk vkidh ftyk ifj"kn ,oa v/khuLFk iapk;r lfefr;ksa esa d0fy0 in ij p;u dj fy;k x;k gSA bu dkfeZdksa esa ls ftuds }kjk mDr v/khuLFk lsok ds inksa ij vkosnu fd;k gS ftudk p;u bu inksa ij gks tkrk gS rks vkosndksa }kjk dfu"B fyfid ds in ij dk;Zxzg.k dky ls c<+ksrjh dh vuqefr pkgus ij mDr v/khuLFk inksa ij fu;qfDr vkns'k tkjh gksus rd dk;Zxzg.k dky esa o`f) dh vuqefr iznku fd;k tkuk lqfuf'pr fd;k tkosA 2- ftu ftyksa esa dfu"B fyfid HkrhZ gsrq ftyk LFkkiuk lfefr dh cSBd vk;ksftr dh tk pqdh Fkh ;k vk;ksftr dh tkuh Fkh foHkkxh; funsZ'k Øekad 2005 fnukad 27-06-2013 ds fcUnq la[;k 3 vFkok 4 ds Øe esa IyslesaV ,tsUlh ds ek/;e ls fu;ksftr dfu"B fyfid HkrhZ gsrq esfjV esa LFkku cukus okys vH;FkhZ;ksa dh la[;k ls foHkkx dks vfoyac lwfpr fd;k tkosaA 3- bl laca/k esa ;g Hkh funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd dfu"B fyfid in ds fy, esfjV lwph ds vuqlkj fu;qfDr vkns'k tkjh fd;s tkus ds ckn ftl [email protected] ds in fjDr jgs gSa] dh lwpuk 'kh?kz fHktok;k tkuk lqfuf'pr djsa rkfd rhljk iSuy QkWj MkD;wesaV osfjfQds'ku miyC/k djok;s tkus dh dk;Zokgh dh tk ldsA (Downloaded on 07/05/2022 at 09:10:31 PM) (13 of 19) [CW-30/2019] funs'kd izfrfyfi fuEufyf[kr dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf"kr gS%& 1- futh lfpo] vfrfjDr eq[; lfpo] xzkeh.k fodkl ,oa iapk;rh jkt foHkkx] t;iqjA 2- futh lfpo 'kklu lfpo ,oa vk;qDr] iapk;rh jkt foHkkx] t;iqjA funs'kd (Emphasis Supplied)
11. The letter bore a clear direction that if an applicant who had applied in both the advertisements and had been selected on the post of L.D.C., sought extension of joining time, he/she shall be granted such extension till the issuance of the appointment orders in the recruitment process for subordinate services.
12. The petitioners herein claim to have applied for extension of joining time. It is the specific assertion of the petitioners that none of the petitioners have been communicated refusal on their application for extension of joining time. During course of the arguments, a list dated 17.8.2015 was placed on record by Shri Rajesh Panwar, learned Addl.
Advocate General, as per which some of the candidates have been allowed extension of joining time on the post of L.D.Cs.
13. The recruitment in subordinate services being undertaken vide advertisement dated 25.3.2013, seems to have met a road block on account of litigation initiated by some candidates and the lis is now reportedly pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, this Court was informed that no interim order has been passed in the matters pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Be that as it may, the authorities have admittedly not undertaken the exercise of declaring the result in the advertisement dated 25.3.2013. The petitioners claim to be entertaining a genuine belief that they would be selected on the post of Accounts Assistant which carries a higher pay scale than L.D.C. and thus, in this expectation, after filling the applications for extension of joining time on the posts of L.D.Cs., they continued to serve the respondents on their respective contractual assignments. However, about 7765 candidates have joined as L.D.Cs. after their selection. The hopes of the petitioners were dashed and struck by a thunderbolt with the issuance of the notification dated 17.10.2014 by the Commissioner, Gramin Vikas and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan. Under this notification, it is proposed that the remaining posts of L.D.Cs. advertised in (Downloaded on 07/05/2022 at 09:10:31 PM) (14 of 19) [CW-30/2019] the questioned recruitment process other than 7765 posts, for which the appointment orders had been issued and candidates had joined, were proposed to be abolished. The petitioners whose future now hangs in thin air on account of this atmosphere of uncertainty, have approached this Court through these writ petitions praying for a direction that the respondents be restrained from abolishing the posts and to allow them to join on the post of L.D.C. pursuant to their selection in the respective Zila Parishads.
14. Mr.Kuldeep Mathur and Dr.Nupur Bhati, learned counsel representing the petitioners, submitted that the State is estopped by its own conduct from taking the step of abolishing the remaining posts of L.D.Cs. against which the petitioners stand selected. They contended that the language of the letter dated 28.6.2013 issued by the Director, Panchayati Raj Department is unambiguous and clear to the effect that those candidates who had been recruited on the post of L.D.Cs. pursuant to direct recruitment of the year 2013 shall be granted deferment of joining time till issuance of the appointment orders in the subsequent recruitment procedure for selection in the subordinate services. Reliance is placed on the following judgments in support of the proposition that after issuance of the letter dated 28.6.2013, the State is prohibited from retracing its steps and attempting to foreclose the petitioners' right of appointment on the post of L.D.C. by de- sanctioning the posts :-
(1) Amrit Bansapati Co. Ltd. and another vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (1992) 2 SCC 411. (2) Bhushan Power and Steel Limited and others vs. State of Orissa and another reported in (2012) 4 SCC 246. (3) Monnet Ispat and Energy Limited vs. Union of India and others reported in (2012) 11 SCC 1.
They thus prayed that the writ petitions deserve acceptance and the respondents be directed to allow the petitioners to join on their respective posts of L.D.C. in the concerned Zila Parishad.
15. Mr.Rajesh Panwar learned AAG and Mr.Manish Patel, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, vehemently opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners. They contended that the petitioners are themselves to blame for their own woes. As per them, the petitioners do not stand to gain anything from the letter dated 28.6.2013. They contend that the (Downloaded on 07/05/2022 at 09:10:31 PM) (15 of 19) [CW-30/2019] appointment orders of the petitioners which were issued after the said letter bear a specific direction that, in case of the selected candidates not joining by the last date mentioned in the order, his/her appointment shall be deemed cancelled. They relied on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Kumar vs. State of Haryana reported in (2008) 2 SCC 161, in support of the argument that the appointment cannot be made beyond the posts advertised for. As per them, since the State has taken steps to de- sanction the remaining posts, the petitioners cannot claim right of appointment. However, in reply to a pertinent query made by this Court, learned AAG Mr.Panwar candidly conceded that the remaining posts have not yet been actually de- sanctioned. The matter is still pending consideration. Shri Panwar also frankly conceded that requirement of L.D.Cs. in the Panchayati Raj Department persists and all the petitioners and a large number of other candidates are still employed on contractual basis under various Zila Parishads on the posts of L.D.C. or other equivalent posts.
16.Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and perused the material available on record.
17. The fact regarding the petitioners' selection as L.D.Cs. In the recruitment process initiated in the year 2013 is not disputed. It is also an admitted case of the parties that just a few days after issuance of the advertisement for direct recruitment of L.D.Cs., the Government issued another advertisement for direct recruitment in subordinate services including the posts of Accounts Assistants which carry a higher pay scale than a L.D.C. The petitioners were holding the requisite qualifications for appointment on both the posts and thus, applied at both the places. The Government realized the possibility of complications arising because of the overlapping selections and thus, consciously issued the letter dated 28.6.2013 whereby, the candidates selected as L.D.Cs. were given permission to apply for extension of joining time till the issuance of the appointment orders in the recruitment process for subordinate services. The authorities concerned, upon receiving such applications, we are directed to ensure that the joining time is extended. The language of the letter carries an unexceptional direction to the concerned officer to extend the joining time of the applicant. The petitioners thus were absolutely justified in entertaining a genuine belief in their minds that upon the application for extension of joining time being submitted, they would be allowed such extension and they could (Downloaded on 07/05/2022 at 09:10:31 PM) (16 of 19) [CW-30/2019] join on the post of L.D.C. in case of non-selection in the subsequent recruitment process. It is further the undisputed case of the parties that the applications submitted by the petitioners have not been rejected by the concerned authorities till date. The selection process for subordinate services is still facing a road block of litigation. The result has not been declared and no appointment orders have been issued. As per the letter dated 17.8.2015 placed on record by Mr.Panwar, numerous candidates viz. Sudarshan Shandilya, Prakash Garasiya, Vishal Kumar Vyas, etc. were given extension of joining time in reference to the letter dated 28.6.2013. In the file of SB Civil Writ Petition No.9556/2014, the petitioners have placed on record a copy of the order dated 11.7.2013 whereby, the concerned B.D.O. has allowed deferment of joining to Ms.Anita Vijayvargiya, Mr.Surendra Kumar Vijayvargiya and Ms.Dimple Soni.
18. Learned AAG Mr.Panwar tried to stress upon the fact that the petitioners have breached the mandatory condition of the appointment order in as much as, they did not join on their post by the last date mentioned therein. As per him, since the appointment orders were issued subsequent to issuance of the letter dated 28.6.2013, the terms and conditions of the appointment order would supersede the above letter and consequently, such persons who did not join the post by the last date mentioned in the appointment order, would be deemed to have forfeited their right of appointment. The appointment orders which were issued to the petitioners required them to join on different dates in the month of July, 2015. It was stipulated that in case, the candidates concerned failed to join the post by the last date mentioned in the order, his/her appointment would stand cancelled. This argument on the face of it is fallacious. The joining time could undoubtedly be stipulated with the issuance of the appointment orders and not prior thereto. Thus, before the appointment orders were issued, there was no occasion for the candidates to seek extension of joining time. Hence, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the requirement to extend the joining time would arise only after the issuance of the appointment orders and not before that. Thus, the argument advanced by learned AAG Mr.Panwar that the order dated 28.6.2013 became non est and as the petitioners did not comply with the terms of the appointment order, they cannot be allowed extension of joining time is noted only to be rejected.
(Downloaded on 07/05/2022 at 09:10:31 PM)(17 of 19) [CW-30/2019]
19. The principle of promissory estoppel on which the learned counsel for the petitioners have banked upon for claiming relief is a doctrine based on fairness. Admittedly, thepetitioners were and even now are serving the respondent State on contractual basis on the posts of L.D.C. or equivalent post for last number of years. It is not disputed that the State is in requirement of their services even as on date. The State, in order to avoid possible future complications on account of overlapping selections in the two contiguous recruitment procedures, took a conscious decision of allowing extension in joining time to the candidates who had applied and were successful in the direct recruitment process on the post of L.D.C. Thus, the State is estopped from taking steps for de-sanctioning the remaining unfilled posts on which the petitioners are selected and in claiming that they have forfeited their right to the posts. The judgment relied upon by the learned AAG in the case of Jitendra Kumar (supra) is entirely distinguishable on facts because in that case, the writ petitioners therein were claiming appointment on the posts beyond the number of the posts advertised by the Government. The Hon'ble Apex court in the said situation held that if the State is right in its contention that the selection process being in cloud, no appointment can be made, the Court by invoking any doctrine cannot ask the State to do so unless it arrives at a positive and definite finding that the State's stand is fraught with arbitrariness. Such is not the situation in the case at hand. There is no contention on behalf of the State that the selection process is under a cloud. A major share of the vacancies have already been filled in with the joining of no less than 7765 successful candidates. Thus, the petitioners who also are amongst the list of selected candidates, cannot be deprived of their right to be appointed. In Jitendra Kumar's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that a legitimate expectation is distinct and different from an anticipation or desire and hope. It was held that legitimate expectation is based on a right. It is grounded in the rule of law as requiring regularity, predictability and certainty with the Government's dealings with the public. The doctrine of legitimate expectation operates both in procedural and substantive matters. Considering the fact that the petitioners before the Hon'ble Supreme Court were claiming appointments beyond the posts advertised for, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the doctrine of legitimate expectation could not operate in their cases.
(Downloaded on 07/05/2022 at 09:10:31 PM)(18 of 19) [CW-30/2019] The scenario in the cases at hand is entirely different and as a matter of fact, the ratio of Jitendra Kumar's case (supra) also helps the petitioners to the hilt. The petitioners were successful in the recruitment initiated vide advertisement dated 14.2.2013 against the vacancies of L.D.Cs. which the State itself has determined. A contiguous advertisement for selection in the subordinate services particularly, the post of Accounts Assistant was issued by the State. The petitioners were having requisite qualifications for being inducted as Accounts Assistant and thus, they applied in the subsequent selection process also. The State itself realized the possibility of complications in case overlapping selections were made in both the selection procedures. Thus, by letter dated 28.6.2013 the authorities concerned were directed that if candidates selected on the post of L.D.C. desired and applied for extension they shall be given extension of joining time till the issuance of appointment orders in subsequent advertisement in subordinate services. The petitioners herein all applied for deferment of joining time. None of the applications has till date been rejected as per the admitted case of the respondents. Some of the applications have even been expressly accepted as noted above. Thus, having applied for deferment of joining time in terms of the State Government's letter dated 28.6.2013, the petitioners were totally justified in entertaining the legitimate expectation that the extension of joining time would be granted to them and in the event of being unsuccessful in the endeavor of selection in subordinate services, they could join on the post of L.D.C. The expectation was legitimate as the same was grounded on the State's own letter/circular dated 28.6.2013. In this background, the State cannot be permitted to retrace its steps and cannot be allowed to de-sanction the posts on which the petitioners have virtually established a lien. The principle of promissory estoppel totally debars the State from taking such a step.
20. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the instant writ petitions deserve to be and are hereby allowed. The respondents shall allow the petitioners to join on their respective posts pursuant to their selection as L.D.Cs. In the questioned direct recruitment process of the year 2013. However,
(i) such of the petitioners who did not apply for extension of time shall not be entitled to join the post;
(ii) the petitioners shall not be entitled to claim seniority over (Downloaded on 07/05/2022 at 09:10:31 PM) (19 of 19) [CW-30/2019] and above the candidates who have already joined their posts pursuant to their selection. Their names shall be placed at the bottom of the select list ;
(iii) the petitioners shall be entitled to notional benefits from the date of the appointment order till the date of their joining. They shall join their respective posts within a period of two months from the date of this order, failing which their appointment shall stand cancelled automatically.
21. Stay petitions are also disposed of.
22.No order as to costs.
23.A copy of this order be placed in each file.
Counsel for the respondent(s) have not disputed the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Babu Lal Meena (supra).
In that view of the matter, I dispose of these writ petitions in view of the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the matter of Babu Lal Meena (supra).
(INDERJEET SINGH),J Chetna/6,53-55,58,59,61-64,67,68,72,292,345,349 (Downloaded on 07/05/2022 at 09:10:31 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)