Disposed

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

Rajasthan HC7 Jan 2014CW/8198/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposed of multiple writ challenges against a rule amendment introducing weightage for experience contingent on employment mode. Citing a lead case that struck down the provision, the court read down the impugned section subject to the Supreme Court's pending appeal.

What did the court decide?

The petitions were disposed of by reading down the impugned proviso in conformity with the earlier judgment in Mitendra Sing Rathore & Ors.

Hari Kesh Mali and Ors. Vs State Panchyati Raj… — Writ and Judicial Review | 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.12069/ 2013 Sumit Kumar Sharma & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶5

(2) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13085/ 2013 Puran Singh Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶6

(3) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13086/ 2013 Mohammed Iliyas Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

¶7

(4) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13087/ 2013 Anita Saral Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

¶8

(5) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13289/ 2013 Manoj Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

¶9

(6) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13426/ 2013 Shankarlal Nirmal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶10

(7) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13538/ 2013 Jitender Popli Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

¶11

(8) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16892/ 2013 Gafoor Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶12

(9) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5937/ 2013 Narsi Mali & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶13

(10) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5940/ 2013 Choubey Ram Dhankad Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶14

(11) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5941/ 2013 Puneet Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

¶15

(12) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6016/ 2013 Fariduddin & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶16

(13) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6047/ 2013 Rakesh Kumar Dadhich & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶17

(14) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6058/ 2013 Sanjiv Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶18

(15) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6120/ 2013 Teekam Chand & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶19

(16) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6123/ 2013 Mamta Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶20

[2]

¶21

(17) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6212/ 2013 Rajendra Prasad Mahawar & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

¶22

(18) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6368/ 2013 Dinraj Gautam & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

¶23

(19) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6418/ 2013 Bal Kishan Panwari & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

¶24

(20) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6732/ 2013 Ram Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

¶25

(21) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6739/ 2013 Vikash Bhardwaj Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

¶26

(22) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7011/ 2013 Chandrapal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶27

(23) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7572/ 2013 Lavkush Mathuria & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶28

(24) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8198/ 2013 Hari Kesh Mali & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶29

Date of Order : 07.01.2014

¶30

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

¶31

Mr.Vijay Pathak, Mr.Tanveer Ahmed, Mr.Anoop Dhand, Mr.Praveen Sharma, Mr.Amit Singh Shekhawat, Mr.Vijayant Nirwan, Mr.Ashok Yadav, R.K.Gouttam, for petitioners. Mr.S.K.Gupta, AAG for the State-respondents.

¶32

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

¶33

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 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

¶34

[3]

¶35

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.

¶36

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.

¶37

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:

¶38

“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.”

¶39

[4]

¶40

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.

¶41

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.

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

Mohit

¶46

S/ 23-69

¶47

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Kesh Mali and Ors. 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

Radhey Shyam Pareek Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Bhanwar Singh and Anr. Vs State Personnel Departmentors

Ravindra Kumar Saini Vs State Personnel Departmentanr

Dilip Kumar Sharma Vs State Panchyati Raj Dep Anr.

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

Ashish Sharma Vs State Panchyati Raj Dep Ors.