Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Swatantra Kumar Sharma vs State (Panchyati Raj Dep )Ors on 4 May, 2017
Author: Ajay Rastogi
Bench: Ajay Rastogi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7240 / 2013
Swatantra Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Vishnu Kumar Sharma aged
about 29 years, R/o Village and Post Pichuna, Tehsil Roopwas,
District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Rural Development and
Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Commissioner, Water Shed Development & Soil
Conservation, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The District Collector and District Programme Coordinator,
Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Baran, Rajasthan.
5. The Chief Executive Office, Zilla Parishad, Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Sh. T.C. Sharma Adv. For Respondent(s) : Sh. Y.S. Jadoun Adv. _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI Order 04/05/2017 Both the counsel jointly submits that the controversy raised in the instant petition has been examined & decided by the Division Bench of this Court before the Main Seat at Jodhpur in the batch of petitions D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1723/2013 (Mitendra Singh Rathore & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) vide judgment dt.30-7-2013 and placing reliance on the judgment referred to the batch of writ petitions filed before the Jaipur Bench bearing D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12848/2013 Sanjay Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Raj. & Anr., came to be disposed of by this Court vide order dt.7-1-2014 and observed as under :-
"After a full adjudication a coordinate Bench of this Court in series of writ petitions, the lead case being (2 of 3) [CW-7240/2013] Mitendra Singh Rathore & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1723/2013], upheld this assailment and the classification sought to be made was held to be invalid vide judgment and order dated 30.07.2013. Consequently, the impugned second proviso of Rule 273 was read down as hereunder:
"Provided also that in case of appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk, merit shall be prepared by the Appointing Authority on the basis of such weightage as may be specified by the State Government for the marks obtained in Senior Secondary or its equivalent examination and such marks as may be specified by the State Government having regard to the length of experience exceeding on year acquired by persons engaged on the post of Junior Technical Assistant (J.T.A.), Junior Engineer, Gram Rozgar Sahayak, Data Entry Operator, Computer Operator with Machine, Lekha Sahayak, Lower Division Clerk, Co-ordinator IEC, Coordinator Training, Coordinator Supervision in MGNREGA or in any other scheme of the Department of Rural Development and Panchyati Raj in the State."
It is submitted at the Bar that being aggrieved by this determination, meanwhile, the State has filed Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).32671/2013 before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the same is presently subjudice before it.
Be that as it may, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we consider it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petitions in the same lines as in Mitendra Singh Rathore & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra), however, making the present order subject to the final decision to be rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).32671/2013.
These petitions, therefore, stand disposed of in these terms."
It is brought to our notice that while disposing of the batch (3 of 3) [CW-7240/2013] of writ petitions at Jaipur Bench, since it was informed that subject in issue is pending adjudication before the Apex Court, taking note thereof it was observed that final outcome of the pending SLP before the Apex Court will be binding on the parties.
The present writ petition in terms thereof stands disposed of and the rights of the parties will abide as per the directions of the Apex Court.
(DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI),J. (AJAY RASTOGI),J. Shekhawatvs/58