Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Radhe Shyam Phulwaria vs State Of Raj And Ors on 22 February, 2018
Author: Ashok Kumar Gaur
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8695 / 2017
1. Dipendra Sanwal Son of Shri Murlidhar Sanwal, Resident of B-
388, Shanti Nagar, Gurjar Ki Thadi, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur
2. Ajay Kumar Khendelwal Son of Shri Ramesh Chand Khendelwal,
Resident of Village Post Kharji, Tehsil Malana Doongar, Sawai
Madhopur
3. Hans Ram Gurjar Son of Shri Ramswaroop Gurjar, Aged About
30 Years, Resident of Village Chandan Gaon, Post Shri Mahaveerji,
Tehsil Hindon, Distt. Karauli.
4. Deepak Tiwari Son of Shri Ghanshyam Tiwari, Resident of
Batwara Mohallah, Rajgarh, Distt. Alwar
5. Sudesh Kumar Parashar Son of Shri Radhey Shaym Parashar,
Resident of Purani Kekri Surajpole Gate, Near Ramdwara, Kekri,
Distt. Ajmer
6. Ramakant Swami Son of Shri Kamal Kant Swami, Resident of
Buchahera, Near Bawari, Ward No. 20, Kotputli, Distt. Jaipur.
7. Babu Lal Sharma Son of Shri Jugal Kishore Sharma, Resident of
Ward No. 20, Laxmangarh, Distt. Sikar.
8. Satyendra Kumar Sharma Son of Shri Ram Kumar Sharma,
Resident of Village Chila Chor, Tehsil Bari, Distt. Dholpur.
9. Devendra Singh Son of Shri Mohan Singh, Resident of Village
Post Rampura Bas, Tehsil & Distt. Churu.
10. Pankaj Kumar Jhuriya Son of Shri Mani Ram Jhuriya, Resident
of Civil Lines, Hanumangarh Junction, Hanumangarh.
11. Miss Swati Upadhyay Daughter of Shri G.K. Upadhyay,
Resident of 4/199, Otisy Scheme, Charak Marg, Udaipur.
12. Subhash Bhadrecha Son of Shri Ram Kishan Bhadrecha,
Resident of Gali No. 1, Rampura Basti, Lalgarh, Distt. Bikaner.
13. Harsh Jangid Son of Shri Sahdev Kumar, Resident of Ward No.
14, Near Jama Maszid, Nohar, Distt. Hanumangarh.
14. Sahab Ram Son of Shri Banwari Lal Soni, Resident of Gali No.
1, Surya Nagar, Ward No. 27, Hanumangarh Town.
15. Hans Raj Son of Shri Nemi Chand, Resident of Behind Bus
Stand, Ward No. 7, Sangariya, Distt. Hanumangarh.
(2 of 36)
[ CW-8695/2017]
16. Jagdish Kiradoo Son of Shri Kishan Kumar Kiradoo, Resident of
Peerudhan Kiradoo, Sale Ki Holi Ka Chowk, Bikaner.
17. Deepak Kumar Suthar Son of Shri Hanuman Prasad Suthar,
Resident of Near Purani Ginani Gantel House, Bikaner.
18. Rajeev Swami Son of Shri Madan Lal Swami, Resident of
Outside Naththusar Gate, Near Lali Byepass, Bikaner.
19. Mahesh Chand Saini Son of Shri Puran Chand Saini, Resident
of Byepass Marg, Naya Kua, Bansur, Distt. Alwar.
20. Devendra Singh Chauhan Son of Shri Jagdish Singh Chauhan,
Resident of Kisan Colony, Bansur, Distt. Alwar.
21. Shishpal Singh Son of Shri Bhanwar Singh, Village Barna,
Tehsil Bilara, Distt. Jodhopur.
22. Satish Kumar Jangid Son of Shri Radhey Shyam Jangid,
Resident of VPO Pundarpada, Via Manpur, Distt. Dausa.
23. Ravi Kumar Chaturvedi Son of Shri Puran Chand Chaturvedi,
Resident of Behind Zila Parishad, Karauli.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of
Personnel, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through the
Chairman.
3. Dharmendra Kumar Dixit son of late Shri Ganpat Ram
Sharma, by caste Brahmin, resident of 5-C-6, Government Multi
Storey Flats, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur.
4. Satish Jain son of Shri Ratan Lal Jain. By caste Jain, resident
of Bagicha Colony, Adarsh Nagar, Sawai Madhopur.
5. Govind Prased Singhal son of Shri Murari Lal Singhal, by
caste Vaishya, resident of 'Agrasen Colony, Raja Mandi, Bhusawar,
Bharatpur.
6. Gaurav Agrawal son of Shri Ramkhiladi Agrawal, by caste
Vaishya, resident of 61-A, Second Floor, Prem Nagar First, Gurjar
ki Thadi, Jaipur.
7. Girraj Kishore Ranga son of Shri Bulaki Das Ranga, by caste
Brahmin, resident of Nathaniya ki Sarai, Barah Gurwar ka Chowk,
Bikaner.
(3 of 36)
[ CW-8695/2017]
8. Deepak Bhardwaj son of Shri Tarachand Sharma, by caste
Brahmin, resident of 28, Friends Colony, Panchayawala, Sirsi Road,
Jaipur.
9. Santosh Kumar Gupta son of Shri Suraj Mal Gupta, by caste
Vaishya, resident Uppral Bajar, Bhusawar, Bharatpur.
10. Shiv Kumar son of Shri Kishan Lal, resident of Anti Corruption
Court, Sri Ganganagar.
11. Sunil Kumar Gupta son of Shri Bhagwan Sahai, by caste
Vaishya, resident of Near Bank of Baroda, Kalyan Colony, Bayana.
12. Vivek Kumar Goyal son of Shri Omprakash Goyal, by caste
Vaishya, resident of Near Bank of Baroda, Kalyan Colony, Bayana.
13. Jagdish Kumar son of Shri Sainditta Ram, resident of 85, 3 rd
Floor, Udaram Chowk, Purani Abadi, Sriganganagar.
14. Chandra Shekhar Tiwari son of Shri Hari Prakash Tiwari, by
caste Brahmin, resident of Village Khadraya, Post Bhaisina,
Bharatpur.
15. Manish Kumar son of Shri Brijesh Kumar Goyal, by caste
Vaishya, resident of Kalyan Colony, Meerana Road, Bayana,
Bharatpur.
16. Rajeev Lochan Jaiman son of Shri Lokesh Kumar, by caste
Brahmin, resident of Village Post Jawali, Tehsil Laxmangarh, Distt.
Alwar.
17. Satyadev Sharma son of Shri Shrikant Sharma, by caste
Brahmin, resident of Opposite State Bank, Dhakar Potha,
Hindauncity.
18. Nidhi Rani Gupta son of Shri Neeraj Bansal, by caste Vaishya,
resident of B-148, Kriti Nagar, Jaipur.
19. Abhishek Kumar Nagla son of Shri Kailash Chand Nagla, by
caste Brahmin, resident of near Surya Mandir Chota Bazar,
Sambhar Lake, Jaipur.
20 Shiv Prakash son of Shri Kesar Ram, by caste Prajapat,
resident of 3 Chooti Street No.7, House No.646, Sriganganagar.
21. Devendra Kumar Gupta son of Shri Ramavatar Gupta, by
caste Vaishya, resident of 119/410 Thadi Market Agarwal Farm,
Mansarovar, Jaipur.
(4 of 36)
[ CW-8695/2017]
22. Manoj Sain son of Shri Ganpat Sain by caste
Sain, resident of 21, Chaityna Vihar, Near 10B Scheme, Gopalpura
Byepass, Jaipur.
23. Praveen Pandey son of Shri Ramkishan Pandey, by caste
Brahmin, resident of 668, D-Block, RPA, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur.
24. Chetan Sharma son of Shri Rajendra Kumar, by caste
Brahmin, resident of Madhuban-3, Senthi, Chittorgarh.
25. Kanwar Pal Udeniya son of Shri Harinarain, resident of 60, LBS
Colony, Ward No.13, Chaksu Jaipur.
26. Aaskash Tak son of late Shri Vasudev Tak, resident of 4/300,
Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur.
27. Shobhit Jain son of Shri Bharat Jain, resident of 6/124,
Behind Sadar Thana, Doongarpur.
28. Lajpat Rai son of Shri Prem Chand, resident of 47/B, 2 nd
Premnagar, Sriganganagar.
29. Shailesh Kumar son of Shri Sushil Kumar, resident of G-295,
Azad Nagar, Bhilwara.
30. Gaurav Gumber son of Shri Kishan Lal, resident of 1/95-
1/96, new building Boad Colony, Suratgarh, Sriganganagar.
31.Gaurav Soni son of Shri Dilip Soni, resident of 30/246, Mangla
Chowk, Bhilwara.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Writ Review No. 373/2017
IN
S.B.Civil Writ Petition NO.10594/2017
Gajanand Saini Son of Shri Bhola Ram, by Caste Saini, Aged About
25 Years, Resident of Near LIC Office, Behind New Court, Ward
No.6, Sikar (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Pr. Secretary to Government,
Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
(5 of 36)
[ CW-8695/2017]
2. Director, Treasury & Accounts, Government of Rajasthan, Vitta
Bhawan, Jan Path, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (Raj.) Through Its
Secretary.
Applicants:
1. Devendra Singh Chauhan son of Jagdish Singh Chauhan
aged 41 years, resident of Kisan Colony, Narainpur Road, Bansur
district Alwar.
2. Mahesh Chand Saini son of Pooran Chand Saini aged 36
years resident of Bypass Road, Naya Kua, Bansur district Alwar.
3. Satish Kumar Jangid son of Radhey Shyam Jangid, aged 31
years, resident of village and post of Pundarpara via Manpur,
Tehsil Baswa district Dausa.
4. Sudesh Kumar Parashar son of Radhey Shyam Parashar,
aged 29 years, resident of Purani Kekri Surajpole Gate, near
Ramdwara, Kekri district Ajmer.
5. Mahaveer Prasad Soni son of Devi Prasad Soni aged 39 years
resident of H.No.926, behind Dr. S.N.Sharma Gali, Basant Vihar,
Kota.
6. Ashu Ram Choudhary son of Jhoomar Ram aged 35 years,
resident of Khatinada Ke pass, Badoo, Nagaur.
7. Pankaj Jhuriya son of Maniram Jhuriya, aged 29 years, r/o H.
No.D/92 Civil Lines, Hanumaangarh Junction, Hanumangarh.
S.B. Writ Review No.374/2017
IN
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10246 / 2017
Jagat Bandhu Son of Shri Ram Prakash Sharma, by Caste
Brahmin, Aged About 38 Years, Resident of Chhota Bazar, Kotputli,
District Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Pr. Secretary to Government,
Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur (raj.).
2. Director, Treasury & Accounts, Government of Rajasthan, Vitta
Bhawan, Jan Path, Jaipur (Raj.)
(6 of 36)
[ CW-8695/2017]
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission,ajmer,(raj.), Through Its
Secretary.
----Respondents
Applicants:
1. Devendra Singh Chauhan son of Jagdish Singh Chauhan
aged 41 years, resident of Kisan Colony, Narainpur Road, Bansur
district Alwar.
2. Mahesh Chand Saini son of Pooran Chand Saini aged 36
years resident of Bypass Road, Naya Kua, Bansur district Alwar.
3. Satish Kumar Jangid son of Radhey Shyam Jangid, aged 31
years, resident of village and post of Pundarpara via Manpur,
Tehsil Baswa district Dausa.
4. Sudesh Kumar Parashar son of Radhey Shyam Parashar,
aged 29 years, resident of Purani Kekri Surajpole Gate, near
Ramdwara, Kekri district Ajmer.
5. Mahaveer Prasad Soni son of Devi Prasad Soni aged 39 years
resident of H.No.926, behind Dr. S.N.Sharma Gali, Basant Vihar,
Kota.
6. Ashu Ram Choudhary son of Jhoomar Ram aged 35 years,
resident of Khatinada Ke pass, Badoo, Nagaur.
7. Pankaj Jhuriya son of Maniram Jhuriya, aged 29 years, r/o H.
No.D/92 Civil Lines, Hanumaangarh Junction, Hanumangarh.
S.B. Writ Review No. 375/2017
IN
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11308 / 2017
1. Girraj Kishor Ranga S/o Sh. Bulki Das Ranga, Caste Brahmin,
Aged About 35 Years, R/o Nathaniya Ki Saray, Barah Gurwar Ka
Chowk, Bikaner Presently Working As LDC in the Court of
Metropolitan Magistrate 32, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur.
2. Deepak Bhardwaj S/o Sh., Tarachand Sharma, Caste Brahmin,
Aged About 29 Years, Address 28, Friends Colony, Panchayawala,
Sirsi Road, Jaipur.
3. Govind Prasad Singhal S/o Sh. Murari Lal Singhal, Caste
Vaishya, Aged About 24 Years, Address Agrasen Colony, Raja
Mandi, Bhusawar, Bharatpur.
4. Gaurav Agrawal S/o Sh. Ramkhiladi Agrawal, Caste Vaishya,
Aged About 29 Years, Address 61-A Second Floor, Prem Nagar
First, Gurjar Ki Thadi, Jaipur.
(7 of 36)
[ CW-8695/2017]
5. Shailesh Kumar Asopa S/o Shri Susheel Kumar Asopa, Aged
About 40 Years, R/o G-295, Azad Nagar, Bhilwara.
6. Abhishek Kumar Nagla S/o Sh. Kailash Chand Nagla, Caste
Brahmin, Aged About 24 Years, Address Near Surya Mandir, Chota
Bajar, Sambhar Lake, Jaipur.
7. Manish Kumar S/o Shri Brijesh Kumar Goyal, Caste Vaishya,
Aged About 28 Years, R/o Kalyan Colony, Meerana Road, Bayana,
Bharatpur.
8. Satish Jain S/o Shri Ratan Lal Jain, Aged About 37 Years, R/o
Bagicha Colony, Adarsh Nagar, Sawai Madhopur.
9. Chandra Shekhar Tiwari S/o Sh. Hariprakash Tiwari, Caste
Brahmin, Aged About 31 Years, Address Village Khadraya, Post
Bhaisina, Bharatpur.
10. Deepak Kumar Harsh Son of Shri Radha Kishan Harsh, Aged
About 42 Years, R/o Harsho Ka Chowk, Opp. Government Girls
College, Bikaner.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Department of
Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Secretary Finance (revenue), Secretariat, Jaipur - 302005
3. Director, Treasury and Accounts Department, Government of
Rajasthan, Vitt Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.
4. Rajasthan Public Service Commission,ajmer Through Its
Chairman.
----Respondents
Applicants:
1. Devendra Singh Chauhan son of Jagdish Singh Chauhan
aged 41 years, resident of Kisan Colony, Narainpur Road, Bansur
district Alwar.
2. Mahesh Chand Saini son of Pooran Chand Saini aged 36
years resident of Bypass Road, Naya Kua, Bansur district Alwar.
3. Satish Kumar Jangid son of Radhey Shyam Jangid, aged 31
years, resident of village and post of Pundarpara via Manpur,
Tehsil Baswa district Dausa.
4. Sudesh Kumar Parashar son of Radhey Shyam Parashar,
aged 29 years, resident of Purani Kekri Surajpole Gate, near
Ramdwara, Kekri district Ajmer.
5. Mahaveer Prasad Soni son of Devi Prasad Soni aged 39 years
resident of H.No.926, behind Dr. S.N.Sharma Gali, Basant Vihar,
Kota.
(8 of 36)
[ CW-8695/2017]
6. Ashu Ram Choudhary son of Jhoomar Ram aged 35 years,
resident of Khatinada Ke pass, Badoo, Nagaur.
7. Pankaj Jhuriya son of Maniram Jhuriya, aged 29 years, r/o H.
No.D/92 Civil Lines, Hanumaangarh Junction, Hanumangarh.
S.B. Writ Review No. 376/2017
IN
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11409 / 2017
1. Narendra Kumar Gupta Son of Shri Gopal Prasad Gupta, by
Caste Agarwal, Aged About 34 Years, Resident of Chhitam Tila,
Bayana, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur (Raj.)
2. Rajeev Lochan Jaiman Son of Shri Lokesh Kumar Jaiman, by
Caste Brahmin, Aged About 36 Years, Resident of V&P, Jaoli,
Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Alwar (Raj.)
3. Vivek Kumar Goyal Son of Shri Om Prakash Goyal, by Caste
Agarwal, Aged About 31 Years, Resident of Near Bank of Baroda,
Kalyan Colony, Bayana, District Bharaptur (Raj.)
4. Santosh Kumar Gupta Son of Shri Sooraaj Mal Gupta, by Caste
Agarwal, Aged About 39 Years, Resident of Upprla Bazar,
Bhusawar, District Bharatpur (Raj.)
5. Sunil Kumar Gupta Son of Shri Bhagwan Sahay, by Caste
Agarwal, Aged About 35 Years, Resident of Keshoraipatan, District
Bundi (Raj.)
6. Satya Dev Sharma Son of Shri Shrikant Sharma, by Caste
Brahmin, Aged About 38 Years, Resident of Opposite State Bank,
Dhakar Potha, Hindaun City, District Karauli (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Pr. Secretary to Government,
Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Director, Treasury & Accounts, Government of Rajasthan, Vitta
Bhawan, Jan Path, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (Raj.) Through Its
Secretary
----Respondents
Applicants:
(9 of 36)
[ CW-8695/2017]
1. Devendra Singh Chauhan son of Jagdish Singh Chauhan
aged 41 years, resident of Kisan Colony, Narainpur Road, Bansur
district Alwar.
2. Mahesh Chand Saini son of Pooran Chand Saini aged 36
years resident of Bypass Road, Naya Kua, Bansur district Alwar.
3. Satish Kumar Jangid son of Radhey Shyam Jangid, aged 31
years, resident of village and post of Pundarpara via Manpur,
Tehsil Baswa district Dausa.
4. Sudesh Kumar Parashar son of Radhey Shyam Parashar,
aged 29 years, resident of Purani Kekri Surajpole Gate, near
Ramdwara, Kekri district Ajmer.
5. Mahaveer Prasad Soni son of Devi Prasad Soni aged 39 years
resident of H.No.926, behind Dr. S.N.Sharma Gali, Basant Vihar,
Kota.
6. Ashu Ram Choudhary son of Jhoomar Ram aged 35 years,
resident of Khatinada Ke pass, Badoo, Nagaur.
7. Pankaj Jhuriya son of Maniram Jhuriya, aged 29 years, r/o H.
No.D/92 Civil Lines, Hanumaangarh Junction, Hanumangarh.
S.B. Writ Review No. 377/2017
IN
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11622 / 2017
1. Kamal Asija Son of Shri Gurbachan Singh, by Caste Arora, Aged
About 36 Years, Resident of Ravi Chowk, Ward No. 4, Purani
Abadi, Sriganganagar (Raj.)
2. Bharat Bushan Son of Shri Avinash Chandra, by Caste Arora,
Aged About 34 Years, Resident of Ward No. 19, Near Raja Kothi
Gate, Hanumangarh Town (Raj.)
3. Santosh Kumar Singh Son of Shri Ram Naresh Singh, by Caste
Rajput, Aged About 37 Years, Resident of House No. 85, Bharat
Nagar-B, Ward No. 02, Purani Abadi, Sriganganagar (Raj.)
4. Jagdish Kumar Charaya Son of Shri Sainditta Ram Charaya, by
Caste Arora, Aged About 42 Years, Resident of House No. 85, IIIrd
Block, Purani Abadi, Sriganganagar (Raj.)
5. Shiv Kumar Son of Shri Krishan Lal, by Caste Kumawat, Aged
About 24 Years, Resident of 62-A, Saraswati Nagar, Sriganganagar
(Raj.)
6. Amit Kumar Agarwal Son of Shri Dhanraj Kansal, by Caste
Mahajan, Aged About 36 Years, Resident of Jain Gali, Bayana,
District Bharatpur (Raj.)
----Petitioners
(10 of 36)
[ CW-8695/2017]
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Pr. Secretary to Government,
Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Director, Treasury & Accounts, Government of Rajasthan, Vitta
Bhawan, Jan Path, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (Raj.) Through Its
Secretary
----Respondents
Applicants:
1. Devendra Singh Chauhan son of Jagdish Singh Chauhan
aged 41 years, resident of Kisan Colony, Narainpur Road, Bansur
district Alwar.
2. Mahesh Chand Saini son of Pooran Chand Saini aged 36
years resident of Bypass Road, Naya Kua, Bansur district Alwar.
3. Satish Kumar Jangid son of Radhey Shyam Jangid, aged 31
years, resident of village and post of Pundarpara via Manpur,
Tehsil Baswa district Dausa.
4. Sudesh Kumar Parashar son of Radhey Shyam Parashar,
aged 29 years, resident of Purani Kekri Surajpole Gate, near
Ramdwara, Kekri district Ajmer.
5. Mahaveer Prasad Soni son of Devi Prasad Soni aged 39 years
resident of H.No.926, behind Dr. S.N.Sharma Gali, Basant Vihar,
Kota.
6. Ashu Ram Choudhary son of Jhoomar Ram aged 35 years,
resident of Khatinada Ke pass, Badoo, Nagaur.
7. Pankaj Jhuriya son of Maniram Jhuriya, aged 29 years, r/o H.
No.D/92 Civil Lines, Hanumaangarh Junction, Hanumangarh.
S.B. Writ Review No.378/2017
IN
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10850 / 2017
Radhe Shyam Phulwaria S/o Kailash Chand, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o P. No. 112-B, Shri Kalyan Nagar, Kartarpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Iis Principal Finance Secretary,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
(11 of 36)
[ CW-8695/2017]
2. The Director, Treasury & Accounts Department, Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary,
Ajmer
----Respondents
Applicants:
1. Devendra Singh Chauhan son of Jagdish Singh Chauhan
aged 41 years, resident of Kisan Colony, Narainpur Road, Bansur
district Alwar.
2. Mahesh Chand Saini son of Pooran Chand Saini aged 36
years resident of Bypass Road, Naya Kua, Bansur district Alwar.
3. Satish Kumar Jangid son of Radhey Shyam Jangid, aged 31
years, resident of village and post of Pundarpara via Manpur,
Tehsil Baswa district Dausa.
4. Sudesh Kumar Parashar son of Radhey Shyam Parashar,
aged 29 years, resident of Purani Kekri Surajpole Gate, near
Ramdwara, Kekri district Ajmer.
5. Mahaveer Prasad Soni son of Devi Prasad Soni aged 39 years
resident of H.No.926, behind Dr. S.N.Sharma Gali, Basant Vihar,
Kota.
6. Ashu Ram Choudhary son of Jhoomar Ram aged 35 years,
resident of Khatinada Ke pass, Badoo, Nagaur.
7. Pankaj Jhuriya son of Maniram Jhuriya, aged 29 years, r/o H.
No.D/92 Civil Lines, Hanumaangarh Junction, Hanumangarh.
S.B. WRIT REVIEW No.384/2017
IN
S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10850/2017
Radhe Shyam Phulwaria S/o Kailash Chand, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o P. No. 112-B, Shri Kalyan Nagar, Kartarpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Iis Principal Finance Secretary,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Treasury & Accounts Department, Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
(12 of 36)
[ CW-8695/2017]
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary,
Ajmer
----Respondents
Applicants:
1. Ramlal Saini son of Jhabburram Saini, aged 31 years,
resident of village Laxminarainpura, Post Akhepura, Tehsil Amber
district Jaipur.
2. Ashwani Kumar Swami son of Shiv Ratan Swami, aged 30
years, resident of 3/151, A.G.Colony, Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur.
3. Bhag Chand Parewa son of Ramesh Chandra Parewa, aged
about 30 years resident of 216, Shyampuri, Hida ki Mori, Ramganj
Bazar, Jaipur.
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.R.P.Singh, Sr. Adv. with
Mr.Jai Raj Tantia, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Rajendra Prasad, AAG
Mr.Shobhit Tiwari, Adv.
Mr.Ajay Gupta, Adv.
Mr.M.Faisal Baig, Adv.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR
Reportable
Order
Order reserved on : 06.02.2018
Order pronounced on : 22.02.2018
SBCWP No.8695/2017
The issue raised in the present writ petition is with regard to
considering the cases of Ministerial Staff working in subordinate
courts for appointment on the post of Junior Accountant against
reservation provided under proviso (iii) of Rule 6 of the Rajasthan
(13 of 36)
[ CW-8695/2017]
Subordinate Accounts Service Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to
as "the Rules of 1963").
The Rajasthan Subordinate Accounts Service Rules, 1963
were amended on 23rd January, 1985 by virtue of an amendment
by adding proviso (iii) after the existing proviso (ii) to Rule 6, as
under:-
"(iii) provided also further that 12½ % of the posts of
Junior Accountants to be filled in by direct recruitment
shall be reserved for being filled in from amongst the
ministerial staff of all the departments of the Government
holding a post in the cadre substantively, subject to their
being found otherwise eligible for such recruitment under
the rules. This reservation shall be carried forward only to
the next succeeding year."
The petitioners are employees of various departments of
Government of Rajasthan and are members of Rajasthan
Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1999.
All the petitioners participated in Junior Accountant & Tehsil
Revenue Accountant Competitive Examination, 2013 in pursuance
of advertisement dated 18th September, 2013. The petitioners
have submitted that by way of Corrigendum no.10/2014-2015,
Rajasthan Public Service Commission published a tabular
statement of the post of Junior Accountants and it was mentioned
that 437 posts were horizontally reserved for the Ministerial Staff.
The RPSC issued another Corrigendum dated 16 th April, 2015
and thereafter on 10th August, 2016 with regard to increase of
number of posts and permission to candidates to edit their
applications.
(14 of 36)
[ CW-8695/2017]
The RPSC conducted the written examination on 4 th October,
2016 and the answer-key was uploaded on 6 th October, 2016, and
result was declared on 7th November, 2016. The petitioners have
submitted that two times, revised results were declared and final
revised result was declared on 16th May, 2017 and all the
petitioners were declared 'pass' in the said examination and their
names appeared in the reserve-list/waiting list.
The petitioners have submitted that after declaration of the
final result, they came to know that the respondent-State
Government and RPSC intended to include the Ministerial
Employees working in different subordinate courts in State of
Rajasthan to give them benefit of reservation under proviso (iii) to
Rule 6 of the Rules of 1963. The petitioners sought information
under the Right to Information Act and it was informed to them on
29th December, 2016 that only three categories of employees of
Ministerial Service in State of Rajasthan, have been included and
considered, namely, (i) Rajasthan Secretariat Ministerial Service
Rules, 1970, (ii) Rajasthan Subordinate Officers Ministerial
Services Rules, 1999 and (iii) Rajasthan Public Service
Commission (Ministerial and Subordinate Service) Rules &
Regulations, 1999. The petitioners have submitted that the
respondent-State has specifically informed that since Public
Undertaking/Board/Corporation/ Electricity Board/Roadways
Department had their own Service Rules and as such, their
employees were not included within Departments of the
Government in the Ministerial Staff.
(15 of 36)
[ CW-8695/2017]
The petitioners have further submitted that other candidates
again sought information under Right to Information Act and same
position was reiterated by letter/information dated 10 th march,
2017 by DoP (A-2) Dept.
The petitioners have submitted that on 15th May, 2017 when
information was again sought, the respondent-State-DoP (A-2)
informed one candidate Shri Gaurav that employees working in
subordinate courts and appointed as per Rajasthan Subordinate
Court Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986 (hereinafter called as
"the Rules of 1986") are also being included for the purpose of
consideration of their cases against reservation provided of 12½
% on the post of Junior Accountant as the Rules of 1986 have
been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioners have submitted that the Rajasthan Public
Service Commission also followed the same interpretation as given
by the State Government by treating the Ministerial Staff of Courts
as Department of the State Government and as such, the process
of selection was sought to be completed by considering such
category of employees working in subordinate courts.
The petitioners have submitted that they approached the
respondents by filing representation but after issuance of order
dated 15th May, 2017, respondents were bent upon to proceed in
their own way. The petitioners feeling aggrieved by such illegal
action have filed the present writ petition.
The State has not filed separate reply in the instant writ
petition. Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned AAG has submitted that
(16 of 36)
[ CW-8695/2017]
reply as filed in S.B.Civil Review Petition No.373/2017 in S.B.Civil
Writ Petition No.10594/2017 (Gajanand Saini Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors.) may be considered as the stand of the State
Government. [This Court had decided S.B.Civil Writ Petition Nos.
11308/2017 and other connected writ petitions by a common
order dated 1st November, 2017 allowing writ petitions of the
employees working in the Ministerial cadre in subordinate courts
by common order dated 1st November, 2071. The review petitions
No.373/2017, 374/2017, 375/2017, 376/2017, 377/2017,
378/2017, 384/2017 have been preferred by the applicants-
candidates like present petitioners in the instant writ petition,
which are decided separately along with this writ petition.]
The respondent-State has submitted in its reply that the
Ministerial Staff of Subordinate Courts are governed by Rajasthan
Subordinate Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986, which
was formulated by the Government while exercising its power
conferred by the proviso to Article 309 and it goes to show that
Ministerial employees of the subordinate courts, as a matter of
fact, are the employees of the State Government for considering
their cases under proviso (iii) to Rule 6 of the Rules of 1963. It
has been mentioned that administration of justice; constitution
and organization of all courts except the Supreme Court and the
High Court, falls under item No.11-A of concurrent list under
Schedule-VII of the Constitution of India and organization of
courts is to be taken care by the State Government and
accordingly, the State Government had formulated the rules for
(17 of 36)
[ CW-8695/2017]
the Ministerial Staff of Subordinate Courts for regulating their
service conditions.
The State has submitted that after consultation between
different departments, the Finance Department had also informed
that those employees, who are governed under the Rules framed
by the Governor by exercising its power under Article 309 of the
Constitution of India, will also be considered as employee of the
Department of State and as such, the State has taken a conscious
decision to include such employees working in different courts in
Ministerial Staff.
The respondent-State has also taken a stand that Rajasthan
Subordinate Ministerial Staff Service Rules, 1999 only talk about
the covered categories of employees. However, for other classes of
employees, various service rules were framed under Article 309 of
the Constitution of India governing the services of Secretariat
clerks, RPSC clerks and judicial clerks.
The State has raised an objection as to why petitioners are
feeling aggrieved only against inclusion of employees working in
ministerial staff in different courts and they do not have any
objection against inclusion of other categories of Ministerial
employees working in Secretariat and Rajasthan Public Service
Commission.
The respondents have stated that provisions relating to State
judiciary are contained in Chapter-V & VI of part 6 of the
Constitution of India. Article 229 of the Constitution of India
provides with regard to the officers and servants of the High
(18 of 36)
[ CW-8695/2017]
Court, Article 233 deals with appointment of District Judges and
Article 234 deals with appointment in cases of Members of other
judicial services. It has been submitted that while in case of
officers and staff of the High Court, the Rules are to be framed by
Hon'ble Chief Justice, whereas, in case of subordinate Courts, the
legislative power is vested with the State Legislature and rule
making power is with the Governor. In so far as other employees
of the subordinate courts are concerned, the Constitution leaves it
upon the Legislature/Governor and as such, the employees of
ministerial service in the Courts do not hold a judicial post and are
civil servants. The State has submitted that control of High Court
upon subordinate courts contemplated by Article 235 may extend
to such employees for maintenance of independence of judiciary
but control does not change the character of relation of master
and servant/employer and employee between the State
Government and the employees.
Mr.R.P.Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
petitioner has submitted that bare perusal of proviso (iii) to Rule 6
of the Rules of 1963 makes it clear that such reservation is to be
given and filled in from amongst the ministerial staff of all the
departments of the Government holding a post in the cadre
substantively. Mr. Singh submitted that Courts cannot be
department of the Government and as such, the inclusion of
ministerial staff working in the courts is contrary to the proviso
(iii) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1963.
(19 of 36)
[ CW-8695/2017]
Mr. Singh has submitted that the State Government cannot
have any control over the courts or their employees and by taking
such interpretation, the intention of the State is to make inroads
into the functioning and control of courts, which is not permissible
under the Scheme of the Constitution.
Mr. Singh has submitted that the State Government had
consistently taken the stand that employees working in different
courts are not to be included as per proviso (iii) to Rule 6 of the
Rules of 1963 and change of the stand by the State Government
by informing to the candidates by letter dated 15 th May, 2017 is
wholly unjustified and in a way State has taken 'U' turn and same
cannot be permitted in law.
Mr.Singh has submitted that as per doctrine of
"contemporanea exposito" it enjoins upon the State to exposit
contemporary legal position consistently and not capriciously.
Mr. Singh has submitted that interpretation and position
expounded by RPSC and State that all courts of the State are
functioning as departments of the State Government, is
incomprehensible and conspicuously illegal.
Mr.Singh has submitted that as per Rules of Business framed
by the Governor by invoking Clause (2) & (3) of Article 166 of the
Constitution of India, recruitment rules for all services can be
made by Department of Personnel (A-2) and even the Rajasthan
Subordinate Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986 have
been made by Department of Personnel (A-2) and as such, the
various correspondence entered between the Department of
(20 of 36)
[ CW-8695/2017]
Personnel and Finance, in no way can confer power and no role
can be given to the Department of Finance, which ultimately
prevailed over Department of Personnel to have such
interpretation of inclusion of court employees.
Mr. Singh has submitted that the scheme of the Rajasthan
Subordinate Court Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986
completely excludes any control of the State Government and
High Court alone has the pervasive control over the staff working
in different courts. The counsel has submitted that the appointing
authority as per Rules of 1986 for the ministerial employees, is
District & Sessions Judge or any other authority to make
appointment to the Staff by delegation of power of District &
Sessions Judge with the approval of the High Court.
The Counsel submitted that "the ministerial establishment"
as per definition given in Rule 3(g) "Ministerial Establishment"
means the ministerial staff of the Courts subordinate to the High
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan. The counsel has submitted that
the Rules of 1986 have complete and comprehensive procedure
regulating the service conditions and from the first stage of
appointment till superannuation of employee or termination of
service of such employee, the High Court alone has the control
and State Government cannot have any say in such matters.
Mr. Singh has submitted that various persons had filed writ
petition before this Court for seeking a direction for providing
them reservation in the category of ministerial employees in
pursuance of same recruitment and this Court dismissed S.B.Civil
(21 of 36)
[ CW-8695/2017]
Writ Petition No.16720/2016 (Vinay Mohan Kiradoo Vs. RPSC &
Ors.) along with other connected writ petitions vide order dated
10th February, 2017. The Court took a view that person working in
office of District & Sessions Judge, Bikaner on the post of LDC was
not member of the Rules of 1999 and as such, this Court has
already taken a view with regard to status of such employees of
various courts. Mr. Singh submitted that in view of controversy
decided by this Court on 10 th February, 2017, the respondents
could not have included such candidates for the purpose of
reservation.
Mr.Singh has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court
in Laxmikant Dhal & Ors. Vs. State of Orissa & ors., reported in
1988 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 504 and in Renu & Ors. Vs.
District & Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi & Anr., reported
in (2014) 14 SCC 50 as well as judgment of Division Bench of this
Court passed in Poonamn Chand Vs. The District Judge, Jodhpur &
Ors., reported in 1979 WLN 596.
Mr.Rajendra Prasad, learned Additional Advocate General has
submitted that by inclusion of ministerial staff of subordinate
courts for considering their case for appointment as Junior
Accountant against quota of 12½%, no interference is made in the
independence of judiciary and the State Government has taken
the decision considering the such employee eligible only for the
purpose of giving them benefit of reservation of 12½ % meant for
ministerial staff of the different departments of the Government.
(22 of 36)
[ CW-8695/2017]
Mr. Prasad has submitted that under the Rules of 1986, the
control of the subordinate staff of courts may be with the High
Court or with the Appointing Authority but for the purpose of
inclusion of such employees, the nature of control is not to be
seen and same is not relevant criterion for considering them
eligible.
Mr. Prasad has submitted that it is the legislature power,
which is exercised by the Governor under proviso to 309 of the
Constitution of India. He submitted that since administration of
justice; constitution and organization of all courts is at serial no.
11-A in List III of concurrent list of Schedule-VII, in the
Constitution of India, the power of the State is there to legislate.
The power to create courts vests with the State Government.
Mr. Rajendra Prasad has submitted that under Article 235 of
the Constitution of India, the control over district and court
subordinate thereto vest in the High Court, however, the power
exercised by the State Government to include such employees
does not encroach upon such power of the High Court. Mr. Prasad
has submitted that employee-employer relationship of the staff in
subordinate courts is created by virtue of rules made by the
governor under proviso to Article 309 and such employees holds a
civil post and as such, without interfering in independence of
judiciary in any manner, such employees are being sought to be
included for the purpose of considering their cases under the
reservation provided for Ministerial Staff for giving appointment on
the post of Junior Accountants.
(23 of 36)
[ CW-8695/2017]
Mr. Prasad has further submitted that in General Financial
Rules and Procedures, Part-I in Appendix-8, List of Heads of
Departments, includes District & Sessions Judges at serial No.179.
He has further submitted that under CCA Rules, 1958, in
Schedule-A (Rule 15), the post of District Judge is at serial
no.102. Accordingly, District Judge is Head of Department for
exercising his powers to control the staff.
Mr. Prasad has submitted that as far as reference of order
passed in the case of Vinay Mohan Kiradoo Vs. RPSC & Ors.
(supra) is concerned, the controversy was altogether different and
it was case relating to change of category of employees and such
candidate wanted to edit their online application for considering
their cases. The Court had come to the conclusion that on three
different occasions, the facility was afforded to the candidates to
edit their online application and yet the petitioners in those cases
failed to avail the facility on different occasions, to edit their online
applications and as such, claim of the those petitioners was not
found tenable.
Mr. Prasad placed reliance on the judgment in the case
B.S.Yadav & ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in AIR
1981 Supreme Court 561 and submitted that where power to pass
a law relating to service conditions of staff of subordinate court is
conferred, such power cannot be said to be violative of the control
vested in the High Court over the State Judiciary. He further
submits that the power so exercised by the Governor under
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution in framing the rules of
(24 of 36)
[ CW-8695/2017]
subordinate staff, partakes the characteristics of the legislative
power not executive power. The such power being legislative in
nature, cannot be said to be making any inroads in the
independence of the judiciary.
Mr.Shobhit Tiwari, Mr.Ajay Gupta and M.Faisal Baig, learned
counsel for the private respondents have adopted the arguments
of learned Additional Advocate General and have submitted that
the inclusion of Ministerial Staff of Subordinate Courts is valid and
no fault can be found with such decision of the State Government.
I have considered the submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the parties and gone through the material placed on
record.
The first contention of Mr. Singh, the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the ministerial staff of subordinate courts cannot be
treated as staff of Department of Government, the Court finds that
proviso (iii) added to Rule 6 of the Rules of 1963 clearly provides
that 12½ % post of Junior Accountant will be filled by direct
recruitment and they will be reserved for being filled from
amongst the ministerial staff of all the departments of
Government holding a post in cadre substantively. The inclusion of
ministerial staff of courts cannot be construed by treating such
employees as government servant. The interpretation given by the
State Government, as the Rules of 1986 have been framed by
virtue of power conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution of India, it has kept in mind the power being
(25 of 36)
[ CW-8695/2017]
exercised while framing the Rules for subordinate staff, the Court
does not find such interpretation to be illegal or arbitrary.
This Court is of the opinion that the State has interpreted
that the ministerial staff working in Secretariat as per Rajasthan
Secretariat Ministerial Service Rules, 1970, the persons are
working in different subordinate offices as per Rajasthan
Subordinate Offices Ministerial Service Rules, 1999 and persons
working in Public Service Commission as per Rajasthan Public
Service Commission (Ministerial & Subordinate Services) Rules,
1999, such employees are required to be considered against the
quota reserved of direct recruitment of 12½ % for the post of
Junior Accountant.
The persons working in Public Service Commission or in
Secretariat as per Rules of 1970 and 1999 respectively, may not
be departments of the Government in strict sense, however,
looking to their nature of job and their service conditions being
governed, by virtue of enactment of their service rules as per
power given under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of
India, the State has taken the correct interpretation by including
the employees of ministerial staff working in different courts.
The submission of Mr. Singh that by providing such kind of
reservation in appointment, the State Government wants to have
control over the courts and they intend to make inroads into the
functioning and control of the courts, this Court is of the opinion
that this apprehension of the petitioners is wholly unfounded. The
(26 of 36)
[ CW-8695/2017]
action of respondents by providing an opportunity of appointment
by way of earmarking 12½% post of Junior Accountant for
Ministerial Staff of Subordinate Courts, cannot in any way can be
termed as intrusion or interference in independence of the
judiciary or the control of judiciary is being taken away by the
State Government.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that
a consistent view which was taken by the State has been changed
by inclusion of Ministerial Staff of Subordinate Courts, this Court
finds that the State Government has taken a definite stand before
this Court and has further made it clear by their letter dated 15 th
May, 2017 that persons working in Ministerial Staff in Subordinate
Courts as per Rules of 1986 are required to be considered as
Ministerial Staff. The State Government-Employer in its wisdom
has considered all the aspects by even taking opinion from
different departments like Department of Personnel, Department
of Finance etc., it cannot be said that stand of the Government is
shifting like sand.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that
Department of Personnel (A-2) is the only competent Authority,
which can prescribe the service conditions, suffice it to say that
the State Government has considered all aspect of the matter and
if interpretation of Rules has been made by Department of
Personnel, it cannot be said that any other Department/Authority
except Department of Personnel (A-2), can issue the impugned
order or give such direction.
(27 of 36)
[ CW-8695/2017]
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
as per Scheme of Rules of 1986, entire control over the staff of
Subordinate Courts is of the High Court or of the Appointing
Authority, the Court finds that as far as recruitment and other
service conditions of the employees working in courts are
concerned, the State has not made any interference in the
functioning of such employees except providing the procedure of
recruitment etc. as per Rules of 1986. Rule 32 of the Rules of
1986 gives power to the State Government to prescribe scale of
pay to the persons appointed to the various posts in the cadre and
scale of the pay is to be sanctioned by the Government from time
to time. The other conditions of service like pay during probation,
increment during probation are governed as per Rule 36 of Rules
of 1986. The pay, allowance, pension, leave and other service
conditions of the staff is regulated by different rules made by the
State Government and there are as many as ten specific Rules of
the State Government, which have been enumerated in Rule 36
and made applicable to such staff and further, the service
condition can be regulated as per Rule 36(11) by any other Rules
made by an Appropriate Authority under proviso to Article 309 of
the Constitution of India.
The Court finds that the contention of the petitioners that the
State Government while exercising the power of including such
staff, will also create imbalance of power as not envisaged by the
Constitution, is without any basis. The Court is of the opinion that
such apprehension of the petitioners is wholly unfounded and
(28 of 36)
[ CW-8695/2017]
contrary to the provisions contained in the Constitution as well as
in various service rules.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that
this Court has already taken a view in the case of Vinay Mohan
Kiradoo Vs. RPSC & Ors. (supra), the Court finds that the earlier
writ petition decided by this Court was in respect of different
context as the candidates were not permitted to change their
category and as such, it cannot be said that this Court has already
taken a view on the same issue and respondents were under
obligation to follow the law by not permitting such ministerial staff
of courts to be included for the purpose of reservation in the
recruitment quota for the post of Junior Accountant.
The reliance placed on by learned counsel for the petitioner
on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Poonam Chand Vs. The District Judge, Jodhpur & Ors. (supra), the Court finds that the Division Bench had considered the objection raised in that case with regard to availability of an alternative remedy for challenging the reversion order as it was termed to be "a service matter" as contained in Section 2(f) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate Tribunals), Act, 1976 and objection of the respondents in that case was that in view of the alternative remedy of appeal, the writ jurisdiction could not have been invoked under Article 226. The Division Bench found that control over district courts and court subordinate thereto is vested in the High Court and therefore, the High Court alone was competent to deal with the appeals or representations, which were (29 of 36) [ CW-8695/2017] submitted by the persons in the Ministerial Establishment of the Civil Courts Subordinate to the High Court and the provisions of Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1976 could have no application to the employees who were in the ministerial establishment of the Civil Courts subordinate to the High Court and held that no appeal could lay before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal.
The Division Bench further considered the scope of Article 235 of the Constitution and found that the expression "district courts and court subordinate thereto" in Article 235 must be construed to include the Presiding Officers of the said courts as well as the subordinate staff attached to those courts and the High Court is the sole custodian of the control over the subordinate judiciary, including the staff employed in service in courts subordinate to the High Court. In the humble opinion of the court, the said judgment is in respect of the scope of Article 235 and availability of alternative remedy of filing appeal by the members of Ministerial Staff of Subordinate Courts. The present controversy is in respect of treating ministerial staff of courts for the purpose of considering their cases for appointment and as such, the said judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners does not apply to the present facts of the case and also does not involve the legal issue, which requires consideration in the instant case.
In the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of in Laxmikant Dhal & Ors. Vs. State of Orissa & Ors. (supra), the Apex Court has considered that persons (30 of 36) [ CW-8695/2017] who were appointed to the ministerial post in establishment of a District Judge, the State Administrative Tribunal could not have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. The Apex Court held that if such jurisdiction is conferred on the Tribunal set up under the Administrative Tribunals Act, control conferred on the High Court under 235 of the Constitution, would be affected.
In the humble opinion of the Court, the said judgment does not deal with the issue raised in the instant writ petition and is of no assistance to the present petitioners.
The judgment rendered in the case of Renu & Ors. Vs. District & Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi & Anr. (supra) considers the scope of Article 235. The relevant para of the said judgment is quoted as hereunder:-
"23. Article 235 of the Constitution provides for power of the High Court to exercise complete administrative control over the Subordinate Courts. This control, undoubtedly, extends to all functionaries attached to the Subordinate Courts including the ministerial staff and servants in the establishment of the Subordinate Courts. If the administrative control cannot be exercised over the administrative and ministerial staff, i.e. if the High Court would be denuded of its powers of control over the other administrative functionaries and ministerial staff of the District Court and Subordinate Courts other than Judicial Officers, then the purpose of superintendence provided therein would stand frustrated and such an interpretation would be wholly destructive to the harmonious, efficient and effective working of the Subordinate Courts. The Courts are institutions or organism where all the limbs complete the whole system of Courts and when the Constitutional provision is of such wide amplitude to cover both the Courts and persons belonging to the Judicial Office, there would be no reason to exclude the other limbs of the Courts, namely, administrative functionaries and ministerial staff of its establishment from the scope of control. Such control is exclusive in nature, comprehensive in extent and effective in (31 of 36) [ CW-8695/2017] operation. (Vide: The State of West Bengal & Anr. v. Nripendra Nath Bagchi, AIR 1966 SC 447; Shri Baradakanta Mishra v. Registrar of Orissa High Court & Anr., AIR 1974 SC 710; Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., AIR 1999 SCC 3734; Subedar Singh & Ors. v. District Judge, Mirzapur & Anr., AIR 2001 SC 201; High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. P.P. Singh & Anr., AIR 2003 SC 1029; and Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Madras v. R. Perachi & Ors., AIR 2012 SC 232)"
In the humble opinion of the Court, the scope of Article 235 has been explained by the Apex Court and power of High Court to exercise complete administrative control over the subordinate courts has been explained. The said judgment is not with respect to the controversy raised and as such, there is no assistance to the petitioners.
The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the respondents in the case of B.S.Yadav & ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (supra) deals with the legislative power of the Governor and it lays down that it is the High Court, not the executive, which possesses control over the State judiciary, but it is important to bear in mind that the Constitution which has taken the greatest care to preserve the independence of the judiciary, did not regard the power of the State legislature to pass laws regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of judicial officers, as an infringement of that independence. The mere power to pass such a law, is not held to be violative of the control vested in the High Court over the State Judiciary. The relevant paras of the said judgment is quoted as hereunder:-
(32 of 36) [ CW-8695/2017] "41. Who has the power to pass such a law? Obviously not the High Court because, there is no power in the High Court to pass a law, though rules made by the High Court in the exercise of power conferred upon it in that behalf may have the force of law. There is a distinction between the power to pass a law and the power to make rules, which by law, have the force of law. Besides, "law" which the second part of Art. 235 speaks of, is law made by the legislature because, if it were not so, there was no purpose in saying that the High Court's power of control will not be construed as taking away certain rights of certain persons under a law regulating their conditions of service. It could not have been possibly intended to be provided that the High Court's power of control will be subject to the conditions of service prescribed by it. The clear meaning, therefore, of the second part of Article 235 is that the power of control vested in the High Court by the first part will not deprive a judicial officer or the rights conferred upon him by a law made by the legislation regulating him conditions of service.
42. Article 235 does not confer upon the High Courts the power to make rules relating to conditions of service of judicial officers attached to district courts and the courts subordinate thereto. Whenever, it was intended to confer on any authority the power to make any special provisions or rules, including rules relating to conditions of service, the Constitution has stated so in express terms. See, for example Articles 15(4), 16(4), 77(3), 87(2), 118, 145(1), 146(1), and 2(148)(5), 166(3), 176(2), 187(3), 208, 225, 227(2) and (3), 229(1) and (2), 234, 237 and 283(1) and (2). Out of this fasciculus of Articles, the provisions contained in Articles 225, 227(2) and (3) and 229(1) and (2) bear relevance on the question, because these Articles confer power on the High Court to frame rules for certain specific purposes.
Article 229(2) which is directly in point provides in express terms that subject to the provisions of any law made by the legislature of the State, the conditions of service of officers and servants of a High Court shall be such as may be prescribed by the rules made by the Chief Justice or by some other Judge or Officer of the Court authorised by the Chief Justice to make rules for the purposes. With this particular provision before them, the framers of the Constitution would not have failed to incorporate a similar provision in Article 235 if it was intended that the High Courts shall have the power to make rules regulating the conditions of service of judicial officers attached to district courts and courts subordinate thereto.
43. Having seen that the Constitution does not confer upon the High Court the power to make rules regulating (33 of 36) [ CW-8695/2017] the conditions of service of judicial officers of the district courts and the courts subordinate thereto, we must proceed to consider: who, then, possesses that power? Article 309 furnishes the answer. It provides that Acts of the appropriate legislature may regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State. Article 248(3), read with Entry 41 in List II of the Seventh Schedule, confers upon the State legislatures the power to pass laws with respect to "State public services" which must include the judicial services of the State. The power of control vested in the High Court by Art. 235 is thus expressly, by the terms of that Article itself, made subject to the law which the State legislature may pass for regulating the recruitment and service conditions of judicial officers of the State. The power to pass such a law was evidently not considered by the Constitution makers as an encroachment on the "control jurisdiction" of the High Courts under the first part of Article 235. The control over the district courts and subordinate courts is vested in the High Court in order to safeguard the independence of the judiciary. It is the High Court, not the executive, which possesses control over the State judiciary. But, what is important to bear in mind is that the Constitution which has taken the greatest care to preserve the independence of the judiciary did not regard the power of the State legislature to pass laws regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of judicial officers as an infringement of that independence. The mere power to pass such a law is not violative of the control vested in the High Court over the State Judiciary.
44. It is in this context that the proviso to Art. 309 assumes relevance and importance. The State legislature has the power to pass laws regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of judicial officers of the State. But it was necessary to make a suitable provision enabling the exercise of that power until the passing of the law by the legislature on that subject. The Constitution furnishes by its provisions ample evidence that it abhors a vacuum. It has therefore made provisions to deal with situations which arise on account of the ultimate repository of a power not exercising that power. The proviso to Art. 309 provides, in so far as material, that until the State legislature passes a law on the particular subject, it shall be competent to the Governor of the State to make rules regulating the recruitment and the conditions of service of the judicial officers of the State. The Governor thus steps in when the legislature does not act. The power exercised by the Governor under the proviso is thus a power which the legislature is (34 of 36) [ CW-8695/2017] competent to exercise but has in fact not yet exercised. It partakes of the characteristics of the legislative, not executive, power. It is legislative power." This Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of Jitendra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2018(1) WLC (Raj.) 138 has considered the scope of Rule 6(iii) of the Rules of 1963 for considering the cases of Lower Division and Upper Division Clerk in Panchayati Raj Department for 12.5% reservation as available for ministerial staff in other departments and as such, the Court has found that such clerks fall within the definition of Ministerial Staff given under Rule 258(c)(i)(ii) of Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Rules, 1996 and in Rule 7(19) of Rajasthan Service Rules, and such employees have been held to be the employees of the State.
Further, this Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 7239/2017 (Surendra Kumar Vyas & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and other connected writ petitions, decided on 18.12.2017 has held that the persons working on the post of Commercial Assistant-I (UDC) and Commercial Assistant-II (LDC) in the Jodhpur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. are entitled for consideration of their cases against 12.5% posts reserved for Ministerial Employees for the post of Junior Accountant in pursuance of advertisement dated 18.09.2013. The relevant para of the said judgment are quoted as hereunder:-
"34. Though, it is true that the separate corporation has been formed making it a separate legal entity but for seeing the implication the Sub-Rule (iii) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1963, this Court has to determine as to whether the Nigam will come within the purview of Department of (35 of 36) [ CW-8695/2017] Government of Rajasthan for the purpose of such reservation or not and the answer to it is that in the broader definition of Department of State of Rajasthan shall include the employees of Nigam as they for the all practical purposes are discharging public duties as the employees of any of the Department of State Government.
35. The Sub Rule (iii) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1963 while mentioning the term Department of Government, cannot be construed strictly only upon the technically declared employee of the Department of the Government of Rajasthan and has to include all the limbs of State of Rajasthan, who practically are discharging the same functions whether it is in the reformative area, productive area and distributive area or any other administrative functions which are in the present case being discharged by the Nigam."
This Court is of the opinion that action of the State- respondents and RPSC cannot be termed as illegal in any manner and the inclusion of Ministerial Staff working in Subordinate Courts for the purpose of appointment as per proviso (iii) to Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Accounts Service Rules, 1963 is a valid decision.
Accordingly, the writ petition has no force and the same is dismissed.
WRIT REVIEW NOS.373/2017, 374/2017, 375/2017, 376/2017, 377/2017, 378/2017, 384/2017 The applicants have preferred review petitions seeking a review of the order dated 01 st November, 2017 passed by this Court.
Mr.Jai Raj Tantia, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents had not apprised this Court with respect to the stand of the State, which kept on shifting and as (36 of 36) [ CW-8695/2017] such, this Court passed the order on the basis of statement made by the counsel for the State and RPSC.
This Court on being informed about decision of the State Government and RPSC, held petitioners entitled for consideration of their cases for appointment on the post of Junior Accountant in terms of advertisement dated 18.09.2013 and they were held to be eligible to be considered against 12.5% quota of direct recruitment.
The Court is of the opinion that the order which was passed on 1st November, 2017 does not require any interference and it need not be reviewed.
This Court has further examined the issue of eligibility of Ministerial Staff working in Subordinate Courts for the purpose of reservation of 12.5% quota as per Rule 1963 independently and writ petition filed by the candidates challenging such action of the State to consider them eligible, has been dismissed by separate reasoned order.
The present review petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR)J. NK