Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vikram Singh Rao vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 February, 2020
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR (1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17204/2019 Vikram Singh Rao S/o Shri Keshar Singh Rao, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Chandana, Post Kanpura, Tehsil Shivganj, District Sirohi (Raj.).
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Sirohi.
3. Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Shivganj, District Sirohi.
----Respondents (2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17278/2019 Vikram Solanki S/o Shri Mohan Lal, Aged About 29 Years, B/c Solanki, R/o Post Office Road, Subash Basti, Bali, District Pali (Raj.).
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj., Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Pali.
3. Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Bali, District Pali.
----Respondents (3) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17584/2019 Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri Devi Lal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Mukam Post Beda, Tehsil Bali, District Pali (Raj.)
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj., Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Pali. (Downloaded on 10/02/2020 at 08:40:32 PM)
(2 of 9) [CW-17204/2019]
3. Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Bali, District Pali.
----Respondents (4) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17660/2019 Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Praveen Ram, Aged About 32 Years, B/c Meghwal, R/o Mukam Post Dhawali, Tehsil Revder, District Sirohi (Raj.).
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sirohi.
3. Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Revder, District Sirohi.
----Respondents (5) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 385/2020 Anjani Kumar Vyas S/o Late Surya Prakash Vyas, Aged About 25 Years, B/c Vyas, R/o Mukam Post Badnor, Tehsil Aasind, District Bhilwara (Raj.)
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj., Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bhilwara.
3. Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Aasind, District Bhilwara.
----Respondents (6) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 456/2020 Chandrashobha Solanki D/o Late Shri Raghuveer Singh, Aged About 25 Years, B/c Solanki, R/o Surada, Tehsil Aasind, District Bhilwara (Raj.).
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj., Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur. (Downloaded on 10/02/2020 at 08:40:32 PM)
(3 of 9) [CW-17204/2019]
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bhilwara.
3. Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Aasind, District Bhilwara.
----Respondents (7) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 467/2020 Govind Singh Detha S/o Late Umesh Chandra Detha, Aged About 24 Years, B/c Detha, R/o Mukam Post Doulatgarh, Tehsil Aasind, District Bhilwara (Raj.)
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj., Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bhilwara.
3. Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Aasind, District Bhilwara.
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J. S. Bhaleria For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Tak, Dy.G.C. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Judgment 06/02/2020
1. The present bunch of writ petitions has been preferred for the following reliefs :
(i) "The respondents may kindly be directed to grant annual grade increments from the date of his appointment which has not been given to him due to not having type test. The respondents may kindly be further directed not to insist the petitioner for passing of the type test.(Downloaded on 10/02/2020 at 08:40:32 PM)
(4 of 9) [CW-17204/2019]
(ii) The respondents may kindly be further directed to consider the petitioner for promotion pursuant to the seniority list issued of the LDC.
(iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.(iv) Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with cost."
2. Before adverting to the question involved, it would be appropriate to lay down factual backdrop of the case.
3. For the purpose of deciding these cases, the facts relating to SB Civil Writ Petition No.17204/2019 (Vikram Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors) are being taken into consideration.
4. The petitioner applied for appointment under Rule 277 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1996'), which provides for recruitment of a member of the family of deceased employee. The petitioner being found eligible and entitled was given appointment under Rule 277 of the Rules of 1996, vide order dated 22.02.2013.
5. A consequential order dated 28.02.2013, which followed petitioner's appointment order (dated 22.02.2013) aforesaid had following conditions No.1 & 2, stringed with it :-
"1- bUgsa fu;qfDr frfFk ls 3 ¼rhu½ o'kZ esa Vad.k ijh{kk Hkk'kk foHkkx ds ek/;e ls mRrh.kZ djuh gksxh vkSj ,slk u gksus ij fu;qfDr lekIr gksus ds nkf;Rok/khu gksxhA 2- tc rd Vad.k ijh{kk mRrh.kZ ugha dh tkrh gS rc rd dksbZ okf'kZd osru o`f) vuqKs; ugha dh tk;sxhA"(Downloaded on 10/02/2020 at 08:40:32 PM)
(5 of 9) [CW-17204/2019]
6. Mr. Bhaleria, learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset submitted that the controversy involved in the present writ petitions, is squarely covered by the judgment dated 04.04.2019 rendered in the case of Mohhamad Umer Rangrej Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : SB Civil Writ Petition No.10333/2017, with a small difference of facts: in the case of Mohhamad Umer Rangrej (supra), the appointment order/consequential order did not contain condition(s) of clearing type test, whereas the petitioner's appointment order/consequent order contain a stipulation of clearing a 'Type Test'.
7. Clarifying the facts aforesaid, he argued that even such distinguishing feature would not make any difference on petitioner's right, inasmuch as Rule 266 of the Rules of 1996, which provides for requisite qualification, stood amended w.e.f.
18.12.2012 and the requirement of clearing 'Type Test' has been done away with.
8. Mr. Tak, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that the petitioner's case is not covered by adjudication made by this Court in Mohhamad Umer Rangrej (supra), inasmuch condition of clearing type test, has been accepted by the petitioner with wide eyes open. He argued that in the teeth of condition of clearing type test, the petitioner cannot claim immunity from appearing in such type test. He added that unless petitioner clears the test, as stipulated in the order dated 28.02.2013, he cannot take benefits, which are available to a regularly recruited Lower Division Clerk (LDC).
9. For the purpose of deciding the question at hands, it would be profitable to reproduce the relevant provision relating to (Downloaded on 10/02/2020 at 08:40:32 PM) (6 of 9) [CW-17204/2019] educational qualification contained in Rule 266 prior to 18.12.2012 and which is available after 18.12.20212 :
"Rule 266. Academic qualifications (before amendment). - A recruit must possess minimum qualification as under :-
(1) L.D.C. (85% by (i) Senior Secondary under new direct recruitment (10+2) scheme or Higher Secondary and 15% by under old scheme from Rajasthan promotion Board of Secondary Education or equivalent. (ii) Typing speed of 20 and 25 words per minute in Hindi and English typing respectively.
(2) V.L.W.-cum- Graduate or qualification declared Secretary (100% equivalent thereto by the by direct Government. recruitment)
(3) Primary School (I) Senior Secondary (Academic) Teacher (100% by under new (10+2) scheme or Higher direct recruitment) Secondary under old scheme from Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education or equivalent and Secondary School Certificate from Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education or equivalent with 5 subjects, 3 of them shall be Mathematics, English & Hindi. (ii) BSTC Course."
Rule 266. Academic qualifications (after amendment).
- A recruit must possess minimum qualification as under :-
(1) L.D.C. (95% by A. For direct recruitment direct recruitment (i) Senior Secondary from a and 05% by recognized board or its equivalent promotion examination, and "O" or Higher Level Certificate Course conducted by DOEACC under control of the Department of Electronics, Government of India.
or Computer Operator & Programming Assistant (COPA)/Data Preparation (Downloaded on 10/02/2020 at 08:40:32 PM) (7 of 9) [CW-17204/2019] and Computer Software (DPCS) certificate organized under National/State Council of Vocational Training Scheme.
or
Diploma in Computer
Science/Computer Applications from a University established by law in India or from an institution recognized by the Government.
or
Diploma in Computer Science &
Engineering from a polytechnic
institution recognized by the
Government.
or
Certificate Course in Information Technology (RSCIT) conducted by Vardhman Mahaveer Open University, Kota under control of Rajasthan Knowledge Corporation Limited.
B. For promotion, Secondary from a recognized board and fie year experience on the post of Class IV.
10. Indisputably, after 18.12.2012 the requirement of clearing type test has been done away with and requirement of possessing computer efficiency has been introduced. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is having requisite computer profficiency certificate.
11. In considered opinion of this Court once Rule 266 of the Rules of 1996 stood amended and requirement of clearing type test was substituted by the computer proficiency, the respondents could not have appended a condition of clearing type test in the form of Conditions No.1 & 2 of the consequential order dated 28.02.2013.
12. Rule 277 of the Rules of 1996, under which the petitioner was accorded appointment, provides that appointment to dependent of deceased employee shall be given, if such member (Downloaded on 10/02/2020 at 08:40:32 PM) (8 of 9) [CW-17204/2019] fulfills the educational qualification prescribed for the post and is otherwise qualified for such service.
13. A conjoint reading of Rules 266 and 277 of the Rules of 1996 leaves no manner of doubt that on the date of issuance of appointment order, the petitioners were required to possess the educational qualification, as were prevailing on the date of issuance of the order of appointment.
14. On 22.02.2013 the requisite educational qualification for the post of LDC was that of possessing computer proficiency as provided in Rule 266 and not 'typing'.
15. In this view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the condition No.1 & 2 appended in order dated 28.02.2013 is unsustainable being contrary to Rule 266; the same is, hereby, quashed.
16. It is declared that the petitioner is/was not required to qualify type test for which he is being asked for the purpose of conferring all the emoluments and benefits to which he is otherwise entitled.
17. As an upshot of discussions above, all these writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to treat all these petitioners eligible for all emoluments and advantages to which a Lower Division Clerk is entitled to. The respondents are, however, free to ascertain the factum of the petitioners having requisite computer proficiency, prior to granting all the fruits of their employment.
18. Each petitioner will place a certificate of their computer proficiency, as required under Rule 266 (after 18.12.2012) along with a certified copy of the order instant before concerned Chief (Downloaded on 10/02/2020 at 08:40:32 PM) (9 of 9) [CW-17204/2019] Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, who shall do the needful within a period of eight weeks thereafter.
19. Stay applications and all interlocutory applications in each of the writ petitions also stand disposed of.
(DINESH MEHTA),J 41,42,47,49,50,51&52-A.Arora/-
(Downloaded on 10/02/2020 at 08:40:32 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)