Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ratan Lal Meena vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 13 September, 2023
Bench: Augustine George Masih, Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2023:RJ-JD:29589-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 30/2023
Gaurav Suthar S/o Shri Sunder Lal Suthar, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o Bapu Bazar, Behind Police Station, Rishabhdev, District
Udaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Commissioner, Rural Development And
Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Udaipur, District
Udaipur.
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 964/2022
Anjulata Meena D/o Shri Malkhe Chand Meena, Aged About 28
Years, Resident Of Toksi, Teh. Gangapurcity, District Sawai
Madhopur, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Udaipur, District
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 33/2023
Ratan Lal Meena S/o Shri Bhaniya Meena, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o Village - Manafala, Post - Pal Nithauwa, Tehsil - Sabla,
District - Dungarpur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:52:57 AM)
[2023:RJ-JD:29589-DB] (2 of 8) [SAW-30/2023]
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Commissioner, Rural Development And
Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dungarpur, District
Dungarpur.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manish Patel,
Mr. Ramesh Kumar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Judgment 13/09/2023 (Oral):
1. By this common judgment, we propose to decide present three appeals wherein the writ petitions preferred by the appellants claiming a direction to the respondents to treat them eligible on the basis of qualification of graduation with 'computer application' as one of the subjects and as a consequence thereof, to provide them appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk (for short, 'LDC') pursuant to the recruitment advertisement-2013, have been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the result of the graduation was declared after the cut-off date and therefore, the appellants were not eligible on the date which was fixed for consideration.
2. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the issue involved in these appeals are identical and therefore, the same may be disposed of by a common judgment.
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:52:57 AM)
[2023:RJ-JD:29589-DB] (3 of 8) [SAW-30/2023]
3. Briefly the facts are that the appellants applied for the post of LDC pursuant to the recruitment advertisement-2013, whereby 4000 posts of LDC had to be filled up as per the circular dated 07.09.2022, for which purpose list of candidates was issued. The appellants were also called for document verification, but they were not found eligible as they did not have the requisite qualification on or before the cut-off date i.e. 30.06.2013. It is an admitted position that result of the appellants of graduation degree was declared after the said cut off date.
4. It is the assertion of the counsel for the appellants that the appellants have cleared their computer application examination during the first and second year of their graduation and the results of those years were declared in the year 2012, which is before the cut-off date and therefore, they would be eligible in terms of the advertisement issued for recruitment in 2013. In support of this contention, counsel for the appellants have placed reliance upon circular dated 26.09.2018 {Annnexure-3 in Anjulata Meena vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16313/2022)}, vide which on the basis of an order passed by this Court in Rooparam Meghwal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10050/2018, decided on 25.07.2018], directions to consider candidature of the candidates for appointment to the post of LDC pursuant to advertisement dated 14.02.2013 treating them to be having valid qualification for computer application obtained in graduation/B.Ed. were issued. Assertion has also been made that when the requisite candidates with computer science/computer application qualification were not available, an earlier circular had been issued on 11.07.2018 (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:52:57 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:29589-DB] (4 of 8) [SAW-30/2023] (Annexure-2) by the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department regarding qualification of Senior Secondary from a recognised Board of School Education in the country with computer science/computer application as one of the subject including compulsory/optional/additional subject treated to be an equivalent qualification. It is on the basis of these circulars that the counsel for the appellants contend that basic qualification required for appointment as an LDC was Senior Secondary examination with computer science/computer application as one of the subject up to the said level. Since the appellants have passed their graduation with subject of computer science/computer application in the first and second year of their graduation course and have qualified the same in the years 2011 and 2012 which is prior to the cut-off date i.e. 30.06.2013, they are required to be treated eligible for appointment to the post of LDC.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants have placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Praveen Kumar (D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.241/2022, decided on 28.06.2022) where this Court had held that in the light of the circulars dated 30.10.2017, 25.12.2017 and 11.07.2018, the aspirants, who had acquired the educational and technical qualifications on or before 23.06.2013, were entitled to be considered for selection in situation where the initial technical qualification certificates presented by them were found to be issued by the institute, which have been followed by the technical qualification obtained from the State with the rider that the qualification should have been acquired before 23.06.2013. Learned counsel on the basis of this judgment (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:52:57 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:29589-DB] (5 of 8) [SAW-30/2023] contend that once they have passed the technical qualification prior to the cut-off date i.e. 26.03.2013 may be in the first year or second year of graduation, they would be entitled to the benefit of being treated as eligible for appointment to the said post. Learned counsel for the appellants have prayed that the appeals may be allowed and the impugned orders passed by learned Single Judge may be set aside.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has contended that as per the circular dated 11.07.2018, the said circular only required the qualification of computer science/computer application upto the level of Senior Secondary school. As far as the benefit of circular dated 26.09.2018 is concerned, which was based upon the order passed by the High Court in Roopa Ram Meghwal's case (supra) and therefore, the said benefit would be restricted to the candidates who fulfill the said requirements as laid down therein, which has been accepted by the State. In this regard, he has referred to the said circular and has pointed out that the candidates should be a graduate or B.Ed. and should have cleared a valid qualification of computer application during the said course for being eligible for appointment to the post of LDC. His contention is that on the cut- off date, none of the appellants had the graduation degree nor was the result declared of the 3rd year. Thus, they were not entitled to the benefit of the said circular. Therefore, the appeals may be dismissed by upholding the impugned orders of the learned Single Judge.
7. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, have gone (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:52:57 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:29589-DB] (6 of 8) [SAW-30/2023] through the pleadings in the writ petition as also the judgments on which reliance has been placed.
8. The basic issue involved in the these cases is whether the appellants, who are claiming to have passed their computer application qualification in the first/second year graduation studies and their results have been declared for these years prior to the cut-off date i.e. 30.06.2013 would render them eligible for appointment to the post of LDC?
9. The requirement of passing computer science/computer application for appointment as an LDC being an essential qualification is not in dispute, which was technical qualification required. It is not in dispute that the appellants became eligible for consideration for appointment to the post of LDC, if they fulfill the mandate and requirement as were clarified and directed by this Court in Roopa Ram Meghwal's case (supra). The directions in the said writ petition were as follows:
"The respondents are directed to consider candidates of the petitioners for appointment on the post of LDC in pursuance of advertisement dated 14.2.2013 while treating them to be having a valid qualification of Computer Application obtained in Graduation/B.Ed. and provide them appointment on the post of LDC if they are otherwise eligible and meritorious within a period of 60 days from today."
10. A perusal of the above direction would make it abundantly clear that the candidates who were having valid qualification of computer application obtained in the graduation/B.Ed. would be eligible for consideration for appointment to the post of LDC. The required and mandated qualification of computer application during the course of graduation would crystallise on a candidate (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:52:57 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:29589-DB] (7 of 8) [SAW-30/2023] having cleared the graduation examination. Meaning thereby, the candidate, whose final year result has been declared prior to the cut-off date i.e. 30.06.2013, would only be treated as eligible. Passing of the qualification of computer application/computer science during the course of graduation may be prior to the cut-off date would not make a candidate eligible for consideration for appointment to the post of LDC. A candidate cannot be treated as eligible and qualified on account of having studied the computer application and qualified the same before the cut-off date when the course itself has not been completed which is required i.e. graduation as per the order passed in Roopa Ram Meghwal's case (supra).
11. In the light of the above, the claim as has been projected by the appellants cannot be accepted as none of them had qualified their graduation prior to the cut-off date as it is admitted that their results of the final year graduation examination was declared subsequent to the cut-off date.
12. Reliance by the counsel for the appellant upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Praveen Kumar's case (supra) would not be of any help to them for the simple reason that the case which was the subject matter of consideration before the court was acquisition of computer qualification from an unrecognized institution initially but thereafter obtaining the requisite qualification from the recognized State institute prior to the cut-off date i.e. 23.06.2013. The Division Bench had held there also that the cut-off date was sacrosanct and the requisite technical qualification had to be prior to the cut-off date. (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:52:57 AM)
[2023:RJ-JD:29589-DB] (8 of 8) [SAW-30/2023]
13. In the present case, graduation is a three year course and it is on completion of those three years that a course can be said to be completed. Each year is not a different course and it is the consolidated three year effort of the student, which leads to obtaining graduation degree. This being the position, the prayer of the appellants cannot be accepted.
14. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, being in accordance with law and on proper appreciation of the intent and purpose of the circular dated 11.07.2018, is upheld.
15. The appeals, being devoid of merit, are dismissed accordingly.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH),CJ 48to50-MohitTak/-
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:52:57 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)