Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dhuleshwar Dindor vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 12 September, 2017
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
(1) D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 793 / 2017
Dhuleshwar Dindor S/o Sh. Dhanpat Dindor, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o Village Chikali, Tehsil Pipalkhunt, District Pratapgarh,
Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Principal Secretary,
Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj
(Panchayati Raj), Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. Deputy Secretary, Administrative Reforms (Group-3),
Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. Additional Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchayati
Raj Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
Connected with
(2) D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 794 / 2017
Raju Singh S/o Sh. Sohan Singh, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
Rampura, Post: Lesava, Via: Govindgarh, Tehsil Pushkar, District
Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Principal Secretary,
Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj
(Panchayati Raj), Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Deputy Secretary, Administrative Reforms (Group-3)
Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Additional Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchayati
Raj Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Barmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
(3) D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 795 / 2017
1. Deepak Kumar Pandia S/o Sh Narayan Lal Pandia, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o 166 Kandi, Tehsil Kotra, District
Rajasthan.
2. Dashrath Kumar Nayak S/o Sh. Laxmanlalji, R/o Adiwali
Banjarawada,, Tehsil Khekhada, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
(2 of 5)
[SAW-793/2017Bunch]
3. Govind Singh Chundawat S/o Sh Nahar Singh Chundawat,
R/o Village Post Dolpura, Post - Chinmbora, Tehsil Salumber,
District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Ashish Kumar Bhat S/o Sh. Prahlad Rai Bhatt, Village Post
Mungana, Tehsil - Kapasan Via Bhopal Sagar, District
Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Principal Secretary,
Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj
(Panchayati Raj), Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Deputy Secretary, Administrative Reforms (Group-3)
Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Additional Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchayati
Raj Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
(4) D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 796 / 2017
Devram Bheel S/o Sh. Kodra Bheel, Aged About 42 Years, R/o
Village Naya Tapra, Post Bhasor, Tehsil Sagwara, District
Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Principal Secretary,
Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj
(Panchayati Raj), Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Deputy Secretary, Administrative Reforms (Group-3)
Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Additional Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchyati
Raj Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
(5) D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 797 / 2017
Sukhalal Maliwar S/o Sh. Dhulaji Maliwar, Aged About 47 Years,
R/o Padra, Tehsil Sagwara, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Principal Secretary,
Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj
(Panchayati Raj), Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)
(3 of 5)
[SAW-793/2017Bunch]
2. Deputy Secretary, Administrative Reforms (Group-3)
Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Additional Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchayati
Raj Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pawan Singh, Mr. Gajendra Singh.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMCHANDRA SINGH JHALA
Order 12/09/2017
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants.
2. An advertisement was issued on 14.02.2013 inviting applications to fill up posts of LDC. On 28.03.2013 a corrigendum was issued indicating to the applicants that educational qualifications could be obtained by the date the select list was notified so that during verification of documents the eligibility could be ascertained. The select list, based upon merit position was finalized on 23.06.2013.
3. By said date neither appellants had acquired the eligibility educational qualification being RS-CIT certificate. On the date the appellants were called for verification of documents they had not acquired the educational qualification is conceded to by counsel for the appellants. We note that said date is not forthcoming on record with reference to the pleadings and that is why we have put a query to the counsel for the appellants.
(4 of 5) [SAW-793/2017Bunch]
4. The appellant of SAW No.793/2017 acquired the educational eligibility certificate on 07.09.2013. The appellant of SAW No.794/20147 acquired the same on 21.04.2014. Four appellants of SAW No.795/2013 acquired the same on 23.11.2013, 04.09.2013, 07.09.2013 and 05.02.2016, the appellant of SAW No.796/2017 acquired the same on 07.09.2013, so also the appellant of SAW No.797/2017.
5. Thus, when pursuant to the Circular dated 10.06.2013 the appellants were called for documents verification in light of the select list notified on 23.06.2013, they were declared ineligible.
6. It is settled law that if a date by which educational qualifications have to be attained is notified, the same had to be adhered to.
7. The learned Single Judge has therefore rightly held that notwithstanding the merit position of the appellants, 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 documents verification.
8. The plea of the appellants that the selection process lingered on on account of the dispute pertaining to award of bonus marks has been noted and dealt with by the learned Single Judge. The reasoning is correct. If some candidates had an issue of not being given benefit of bonus marks, the revision in the select list would not mean that the date of notification of the select list would get altered. Only concerning said candidates who were entitled to bonus marks, but were denied the same, revision in the select list (5 of 5) [SAW-793/2017Bunch] would take place.
9. The writ appeals are dismissed in limine.
10. No costs.
(RAMCHANDRA SINGH JHALA)J. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)C.J. Mohit Tak