Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Govind Singh Chundawat vs The State Of Rajasthan on 2 February, 2022
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11554/2018
Govind Singh Chundawat S/o Shri Nahar Singh Chundawat, Aged
About 43 Years, R/o Mukam Dolpura, Post Chibora, Tehsil
Salumber, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
(Panchayati Raj), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan
2. Deputy Secretary, Administrative Reforms (Group-3)
Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Additional Commissioner, Rural Development And
Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14757/2016
Jagrati Bhatt D/o Sh. Vinod Chandra Bhatt W/o Sh. Bharat
Pandya, R/o 31/3 Mohan Colony, Banswara
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Rural
Development And Panchyat Raj Department, Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Zila Parishad, Banswara Through The Chief Executive
Officer
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pawan Singh through VC in SBCW
No.11554/2018
Mr. Khet Singh through VC in SBCW
No.14757/2016
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa through VC
(Downloaded on 03/02/2022 at 08:43:29 PM)
(2 of 5) [CW-11554/2018]
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order 02/02/2022 Brief facts of the case are that in the year 2013, vide advertisement dated 14.02.2013, the Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, issued an advertisement for recruitment to the post of LDC. The educational and technical qualification requirement were mentioned in Clause 5 of the advertisement which reads as under:-
"5- "kS{kf.kd o iz"kS{kf.kd ¼U;wure½ ;ksX;rk %& vkosnd }kjk vkosnu izLrqr djus dh vafre fnukad rd fu/kkZfjr "kS{kf.kd@iz"kS{kf.kd vgZrk;s vftZr dj yh xbZ gksA fu/kkZfjr U;wure ;ksX;rk fuEukuqlkj gS %& vkosnd fdlh ekU;rk izkIr cksMZ ls lhfu;j lSds.Mjh ;k mlds lerqY; ijh{kk mRrh.kZ gksuk vko";d gS rFkk bysDVksfuDl foHkkx] Hkkjr ljdkj ds fu;U=.kk/khu Mh-vks-bZ-,- lh-lh- }kjk vk;ksftr ^^vks** ;k mPprj Lrj izek.ki= ikB~;ØeA ;k O;kolkf;d izf"k{k.k Ldhe dh jk'Vªh;@jkT; ifj'kn ds v/khu vk;ksftr dEI;wVj vkijsVj vkSj izksxzkfeax vflLVsUV ¼lh-vks- ih-,-½@MkVk fizizs"ku vkSj dEI;wVj lkW¶Vos;j ¼Mh-ih-lh-,l-½ izek.k i=A ;k Hkkjr esa fof/k }kjk LFkkfir fdlh fo"ofo|ky; ls ;k ljdkj }kjk ekU;rk izkIr fdlh laLFkk ls dEI;wVj lkabl@dEI;wVj ,Iyhds"kUl esa fMIyksekA ;k ljdkj }kjk ekU;rk izkIr fdlh ikWyhVsfDud laLFkk ls dEI;wVj lkabl vkSj bathfu;fjax esa fMIyksek ;k jktLFkku ukyst fuxe fyfeVsM ds fu;a=.kk/khu o/kZeku egkohj [kqyk fo"ofo|ky;] dksVk }kjk vk;ksftr lwpuk izks|ksfxdh ¼vkj-,l-lh-vkbZ-Vh-½ esa izek.ki= ikB~;Øe"
The petitioner applied in pursuance to the advertisement and was called for counselling. After document verification, her name found place in the final select list which was issued in the month of July, 2013 but she was not offered appointment and reason for the (Downloaded on 03/02/2022 at 08:43:29 PM) (3 of 5) [CW-11554/2018] same as orally informed to her was that she did not possess the required technical qualification, that is, the certificate obtained by her was not as per the requirement of the advertisement.
Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the certificate (Annex.3) obtained by her has been issued by National Council of Vocational Training which is a body governed by Ministry of Labour and Employment and recognized by the Government of India. Counsel further submitted that the course completed by the petitioner includes the Computer fundamentals, MS-Office and Internet studies which, by all means, are equivalent to the syllabus of RSCIT. Counsel has also placed on record the syllabus of the said course which had been undertaken by the petitioner.
Per contra, counsel for the respondents has taken a stand in the reply that the institute, which issued the certificate is not a recognized one and therefore, the same cannot be considered for the purpose of appointment. Counsel for the respondents has further argued that the RSCIT certificate submitted by the petitioner at a later stage is also of year 2015, that is, after the date of the final select list and therefore, the same can also not be considered.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
A bare perusal of the certificate as submitted by the petitioner shows that the same has been issued after completion of the competency test in module Computer fundamentals, MS- Officer and Internet by the candidate and it specifically mentions of the competency acquired after completion of the said course. The competency as acquired by the petitioner have been mentioned as under:
(Downloaded on 03/02/2022 at 08:43:29 PM)
(4 of 5) [CW-11554/2018] "Competencies Acquired -
1. Write, Edit and Print documents using MS Word & Excel.
2. Create Analyse and Format data.
3. Prepare Power Point presentation and use Internet & e-mail."
It is relevant to mention here that during the process of recruitment, there being a doubt about the certificate of the petitioner, a clarification was sought by the Chief Executive Officer of Zila Parishad, Udaipur from the Regional Directorate of Apprenticeship Training, Faridabad. In response to the same it was specifically replied by the said officer that the certificate has been issued under the aegis of NCVT (National Council of Vocational Training) which is a body recognized by Government of India. Perusal of the said response leaves no doubt that NCVT is an institute recognized by the Government of India and the petitioner has been issued certificate by the NCVT. Therefore, the ground of respondents that the petitioner had obtained the certificate from an unrecognized institute falls flat.
So far as the ground of the respondents that the said certificate is not in conformity with the conditions prescribed in the advertisement is concerned, it is relevant to note that the advertisement specifically provides for a diploma in computer science/computer applications issued by any institute or university recognized under the law. It further provides for a certificate in Computer Operator and Programming Assistant conducted under the vocational training scheme of National or State level body. The certificate of the petitioner has been issued by NCVT which would definitely fall within the parameters of "a body conducting (Downloaded on 03/02/2022 at 08:43:29 PM) (5 of 5) [CW-11554/2018] the vocational training program". Once it is clear on record that NCVT is an institute recognized by the Government of India it can safely be concluded that the certificate issued by the said institute is also valid for all purposes. Moresoever, as submitted on record, the petitioner had obtained qualification of RSCIT too later on.
In view of the above facts, it is clear on record that the certificate obtained by the petitioner and submitted along with her application form is within the parameters as laid down in the advertisement and the petitioner cannot be denied appointment by non-consideration of the same. Moresoever, when during the document verification process, the department itself had verified the same and after verification found the petitioner to be eligible and declare her selected it cannot be permitted take a shifting stand later on.
In view of the above observations, the present writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to offer appointment to the petitioner with immediate effect. The petitioner would not be entitled for any monetary benefits but she would be entitled to all the notional benefits w.e.f. the date the person less meritorious to her had been selected.
(REKHA BORANA),J 20,21-T.Singh/-
(Downloaded on 03/02/2022 at 08:43:29 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)