Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Sheesh Ram Gurjar And Ors vs State (Panchyati Raj Dep )Ors on 19 May, 2017
Bench: Ajay Rastogi, Virendra Kumar Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6568/2013
1. Sheesh Ram Gurjar Son of Shri Bhajan Lal Gurjar, Aged About
37 Years, Village and Post Manota Khurd, Tehsil Khetri, District
Jhunjhunu (Raj.).
2. Kayamudeen Mansuri Son of Shri Mohammdeen Mansuri, Aged
About 38 Years, Village and Post Jarkhoda, Via Kanwar, Tehsil
Nainwa, District Bundi (Raj.)
3. Randheer Singh Son of Shri Mohan Singh, Aged About 38 Years,
Village Kalyanpura, Post Jairampura, Via Srimadhopur, District
Sikar (Raj.)
4. Lokesh Kumar Suthar Son of Shri Mani Lal Suthar, Aged About
23 Years, Village Parda Saroda, Tehsil Sagwada, District
Dungarpur (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary Cum Commissioner,
Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Deputy Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
3. Chief Executive Officer Cum Additional Examination Controller,
Zila Parishad, Sikar
4. Chief Executive Officer Cum Additional Examination Controller,,
Zila Parishad, Jalore
5. Chief Executive Officer Cum Additional Examination Controller ,,
Zila Parishad, Pali
6. Chief Executive Officer Cum Additional Examination Controller.,
Zila Parishad, Dungarpur
7. Director, National Rural Mission Scheme of Mukhyamantri BPL
Jeevan Raksha Kosh, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Sh. Mahendra Singh Gurjar Adv. For Respondent(s) :
_____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR Order 19/05/2017 Instant petition came to be filed in 2013 assailing validity of (2 of 3) [CW-6568/2013] notifications dt.17-12-2012 & 29-1-2013 making amendment u/R.273 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj. Rules,1996.
It is brought to our notice that earlier batch of writ petitions (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4144/2013-Archana Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) have been decided by the Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur vide judgment dt.25-9-2013 but the State Government being aggrieved by the intervention made by this Court assailed the judgment of the Division Bench dt.25-9-2013 before the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.32008- 32009/2013 and the interpretation made by this Court of the amendment notifications has not been approved by the Apex Court and we consider it appropriate to quote the view which the Apex Court has expressed while disposing of the appeal preferred at the instance of State of Rajasthan vide order dt.29-11-2016, which reads as under :-
"In the instant case, the State itself was the propounder of the policy (noticed above), giving the weightage which varied with the number of 'experience' gained by the employees. Therefore, the State cannot be bard to say that the policy is not a rational policy. Apart from that, we do not find anything arbitrary in the policy propounded by the State.
In the result, the appeals of the state as well as of the employees are allowed. We set aside the judgment under appeal to the extent that it held that the State Government may grant weightage/bonus marks against the service experience within the cap of 15 marks. In other words, the policy propounded by the State must be allowed to operate on its own terms.
(3 of 3) [CW-6568/2013] With the above directions, the appeals are allowed as indicated above."
In the light of the order of the Apex Court, present petition has become infructuous and accordingly dismissed.
(VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR),J. (AJAY RASTOGI),J.
ShekhawatVS/12