Allowed

Dilip Kumar Sharma v. State Panchyati Raj Dep Anr.

Rajasthan HC7 Jan 2014CW/6157/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order consolidates thirty-eight writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (Amended 2013). The Court, relying on Mitendra Singh Rathore, holds that the rule violates Articles 14 and 16. The petitions are disposed of on the same lines as the lead case, subject to the pending Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.

What did the court decide?

The impugned second proviso to Rule 273 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 is declared unconstitutional and the writ petitions are allowed.

Dilip Kumar Sharma Vs State Panchyati Raj… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

[1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶3

ORDER

¶4

(1) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12848/ 2013 Sanjay Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

¶5

(2) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3307/ 2013 Dalip Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

¶6

(3) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3308/ 2013 Akram Ali Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶7

(4) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3309/ 2013 Lokesh Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

¶8

(5) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3310/ 2013 Kailash Chandra Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

¶9

(6) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3426/ 2013 Ankur Agarwal & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

¶10

(7) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3427/ 2013 Amit Kumar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

¶11

(8) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4460/ 2013 Rajesh Saini & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶12

(9) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4462/ 2013 Amit Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶13

(10) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5605/ 2013 Nriphan Singh Rajawat & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

¶14

(11) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5627/ 2013 Hemant Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

¶15

(12) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5947/ 2013 Darab Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

¶16

(13) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6022/ 2013 Vasim Parvez Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

¶17

(14) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6023/ 2013 Manna Ram Jat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

¶18

(15) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6044/ 2013 Sanjay Kumar Sharma & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶19

(16) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6045/ 2013 Jyoti Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶20

[2]

¶21

(17) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6046/ 2013 Piyush Panchal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶22

(18) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6065/ 2013 Hanuman Prasad Daroga & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶23

(19) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6122/ 2013 Sita Ram Rolaniya & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

¶24

(20) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6157/ 2013 Dilip Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

¶25

(21) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6160/ 2013 Harlal Bairwa & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶26

(22) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6166/ 2013 Suresh Kumar Kumawat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

¶27

(23) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6173/ 2013 Abhishek Gautam & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶28

(24) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6221/ 2013 Ravi Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

¶29

(25) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6367/ 2013 Bane Singh Prajapat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶30

(26) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6369/ 2013 Krishan Kumar Mishra & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶31

(27) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6770/ 2013 Brij Raj Patwa Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

¶32

(28) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6920/ 2013 Mahanand Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶33

(29) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7124/ 2013 Sumer Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

¶34

(30) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7527/ 2013 Kumar Pal & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶35

(31) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7530/ 2013 Govind Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶36

(32) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9655/ 2013 Buddhi Prakash Jharotia Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶37

(33) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9656/ 2013 Kailash Chand Regar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶38

(34) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9657/ 2013 Kapil Kumar Soni Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶39

[3]

¶40

(35) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11512/ 2013 Deepa Verma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶41

(36) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11520/ 2013 Rustam Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶42

(37) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12849/ 2013 Anil Kumar Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

¶43

(38) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12850/ 2013 Jagdish Prasad Swami Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

¶44

(39) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12852/ 2013 Pushap Raj Raigar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶45

(40) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12854/ 2013 Sumit Bhardwaj Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶46

(41) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13418/ 2013 Govind Kumar Mittal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶47

(42) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13431/ 2013 Rahul Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶48

(43) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15941/ 2013 Ranjeet Singh Khangarot Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

¶49

(44) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15947/ 2013 Munni Kavia Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶50

Date of Order : 07.01.2014

¶51

HON ' BLE THE CHI EF JUSTI CE MR. AMI TAVA ROY HON ' BLE MR. JUSTI CE VEERENDR SI NGH SI RADHANA

¶52

Mr.Ram Pratap Saini, Mr.Ashok Yadav, Mr.Mahesh Gupta, Mr.Mahipal Kharra, Mr.R.D.Rastogi, Mr.A.R.Meena, Mr.Mukesh Kumar Goyal, Mr.Raj Kumar Goyal, Mr.N.L.Agarwal, Mr.Yunus Khan, Mr.R.D.Meena, for petitioners. Mr.S.K.Gupta, AAG for the State-respondents.

¶53

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Advocate General for the State-respondents.

¶54

It is submitted at the Bar that the challenge involved in the instant petitions pertain to the second proviso to Rule 273 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 as amended vide the

¶55

[4]

¶56

Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Rules, 2013 whereby a distinction was sought to be introduced for the grant of marks by way of weightage contingent on the length of experience as referred to therein acquired by the persons engaged on the post of Junior Technical Assistant, Junior Engineer, Gram Rozgar Sahayak, Data Entry Operator, Computer Operator with Machine, Lekha Sahayak, Lower Division Clerk, Coordinator I EC, Coordinator Training, Coordinator Supervision in MGNREGA or any scheme of the Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj in the State other than through placement agency.

¶57

Being aggrieved by their exclusion in view of the expression “other than through placement agency”, the challenge has been laid by the petitioners questioning the constitutional validity of this proviso on the ground of hostile discrimination in violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.

¶58

After a full adjudication a coordinate Bench of this Court in series of writ petitions, the lead case being Mit en dr a Sin gh Rat h or e & Or s. vs. St at e of Raj ast h an & Or s. [ D.B.Civ il W r it Pet it ion No.1 7 2 3 / 2 0 1 3 ] , upheld this assailment and the classification sought to be made was held to be invalid vide judgment and order dated 30.07.2013. Consequently, the impugned second proviso of Rule 273 was read down as hereunder:

¶59

“Provided also that in case of appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk, merit shall be prepared by the Appointing Authority on the basis of such weightage as may be specified by the State Government for the marks obtained in Senior Secondary or its equivalent examination and such marks as may be specified by the State Government having regard to the length of

¶60

[5]

¶61

experience exceeding on year acquired by persons engaged on the post of Junior Technical Assistant (J.T.A.), Junior Engineer, Gram Rozgar Sahayak, Data Entry Operator, Computer Operator with Machine, Lekha Sahayak, Lower Division Clerk, Co-ordinator IEC, Coordinator Training, Coordinator Supervision in MGNREGA or in any other scheme of the Department of Rural Development and Panchyati Raj in the State.”

¶62

It is submitted at the Bar that being aggrieved by this determination, meanwhile, the State has filed Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).32671/ 2013 before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the same is presently subjudice before it.

¶63

Be that as it may, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we consider it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petitions in the same lines as in Mitendra Singh Rathore & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra), however, making the present order subject to the final decision to be rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).32671/ 2013.

¶64

These petitions, therefore, stand disposed of in these terms.

¶65

A copy of this order be placed in all the files.

¶66

( VEERENDR SI NGH SI RADHANA) ,J. ( AMI TAVA ROY) ,C.J.

¶67

Mohit

¶68

S/ 23-69

¶69

All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. Mohit Tak, Jr. P.A.

Dilip Kumar Sharma v. State Panchyati Raj Dep Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Kumar Sharma v. State Panchyati Raj Dep Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radhey Shyam Pareek Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Bhanwar Singh and Anr. Vs State Personnel Departmentors

Ravindra Kumar Saini Vs State Personnel Departmentanr

Hari Kesh Mali and Ors. Vs State Panchyati Raj Dep Ors.

Abhishek Gautam and Anr. Vs State Panchyati Raj Dep Ors.

Ashish Sharma Vs State Panchyati Raj Dep Ors.