Allowed

Mohammad Ali v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC7 Jan 2019CW/252/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allows a writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's candidature for an LDC post on grounds of lacking computer education. The court held that the petitioner is entitled to consideration based on a precedent allowing Computer Application qualifications in graduation to satisfy computer eligibility requirements, subject to vacancy availability.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed. The State is directed to consider the petitioner's candidature for appointment as LDC treating his Computer Application in Graduation as valid qualification, if vacancies

Mohammad Ali Vs State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ No. 252/2019

¶3

Mohammad Ali S/o Shri Abdul Rahaman, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Vpo Sattasar, Village Sattasar, Tehsil Chhatargarh, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj (Panchayati Raj), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶7

Deputy Secretary, Administrative Reforms (Group-3) Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶8

Additional Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶9

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Ganganagar, Rajasthan.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pawan Singh. For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.S. Solanki for Mr. Manish Patel.

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶13

Order

¶14

07/01/2019

¶15

A copy of the writ petition has been supplied to Mr. Manish Patel, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶16

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner questioning the validity of the order dated 11.7.2018 (Annex.-8) on account of petitioner lacking in requisite qualification pertaining to computer education.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by judgment of this Court in Heera Lal Jat v. State of Raj. & Ors.: SBCW

¶18

(2 of 2)

¶19

[CW-252/2019]

¶20

No.11070/2018 , decided on 01.08.2018, wherein the following

¶21

directions have been issued:-

¶22

“4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing record, this Court is of the opinion that the law laid down by this Court in Roopa Ram Meghwal (supra) while following Pinal Singh Ranawat (supra) and Shivom Gupta (supra) read with judgment of Gajendra Singh (supra) clearly indicate that a person having qualification of Computer Application in graduation shall be entitled to be considered as qualified for the computer qualification or any Diploma or Computer Operator & Programming Assistant (COPA) or Data Preparation and Computer Software (DPCS). This Court also finds that the respondents themselves have included a degree in Computer Science in their notification dated 14.3.2016 issued by the Department of Personnel, which is further clarified by the order dated 11.7.2018, whereby the subject of Computer in degree may be optional, compulsory or additional.

¶23

In light of the aforesaid the present writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of LDC in pursuance of advertisement of the year 2013 while treating him to be having a valid qualification of Computer Application obtained in Graduation and provide him appointment on the post of LDC if he is otherwise eligible and meritorious within a period of 60 days from today.”

¶24

Learned counsel for the respondent-caveator is not in a position to dispute that the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by judgment in Heera Lal Jat (supra).

¶25

In view of the above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed with the similar direction as given in the case of Heera Lal Jat (supra) with the additional stipulation that the above relief would be applicable only if the vacancies are available.

¶26

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶27

260-PKS/-

Mohammad Ali v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Ali v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Puri Vs State of Rajasthan

Vini Soni Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Uma Vyas Vs State of Rajasthan

Bharti Shrimali Vs State of Rajasthan

Vinod Vs State of Rajasthan

Girdhari Lal Vs the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation