Disposed

Virendra Kumar Jain v. State Panchyati Raj Dep Ors.

Rajasthan HC15 Jan 2014CW/6159/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 273 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 regarding experience criteria. The order relied on a prior coordinate bench judgment, reading down the rule as subject to the pending Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stood disposed of in terms previously laid down; the rule is read down subject to the Supreme Court’s final decision.

Virendra Kumar Jain Vs State Panchyati Raj Dep Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

[1]

¶2

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

¶3

ORDER

¶4

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6159/ 2013 Virendra Kumar Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶5

Date of Order : 15.01.2014

¶6

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

¶7

Mr. Aatish Jain, for petitioner. Mr. S.K.Gupta, AAG assisted by Mr. Gaurav Tanwar, for the State-respondents.

¶8

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

¶9

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

¶10

Being aggrieved by their exclusion in view of the expression “other than through placement agency”, the challenge has been

¶11

[2]

¶12

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.

¶13

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:

¶14

“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 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.”

¶15

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.

¶16

Be that as it may, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we consider it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition in the same lines as in Mitendra Singh Rathore & Ors. vs.

¶17

[3]

¶18

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.

¶19

The petition, therefore, stands disposed of in these terms.

¶20

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

¶21

Mohit

¶22

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

Virendra Kumar Jain v. State Panchyati Raj Dep Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Kumar Jain v. State Panchyati Raj Dep Ors.

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

Dilip Kumar Sharma Vs State Panchyati Raj Dep Anr.

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.

Mubarik Vs State Home Departmentanr

Nawal Singh Ratnawat Vs State Mines Departmentors