Dismissed

State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Prakash Tailor

Rajasthan HC28 Sept 2022SAW/338/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed an appeal challenging an order awarding bonus marks to candidates who worked as Office Assistants in the Aajivika Scheme for recruitment as Lower Division Clerks. The court held that denying marks was arbitrary and violative of constitutional rights.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed below directing bonus marks; Special Appeal dismissed.

State of Rajasthan Vs Shiv Prakash Tailor — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 338/2021

¶3

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

¶4

The District Collector Cum Program Officer, Bhilwara.

¶5

Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Bhilwara.

¶6

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Bhilwara.

¶7

----Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Shiv Prakash Tailor S/o Baalmukund Tailor, Aged About 35 Years, 4, Ram Nagar Near Dargad Narsingh Home, Shahpura, Bhilwara, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

¶10

Swati Saraswat D/o Mukesh Saraswat, Aged About 23 Years, C/o Kailash Chand Bhandiya, Shahji Mohalla, Mangla Chowk, Bhilwara.

¶11

Sanjay Kurnar Chobi S/o Dhanalal Sharma, Aged About 28 Years, Gega Ka Kheda, Tehsil Kotdi, District Bhilwara.

¶12

Ankit Kabra S/o Govind Kabra, Aged About 26 Years, Gram Post Amarwasi Tehsil Jahajpur, District Bhilwara.

¶13

Mahaboob Ali S/o Kadir Mohammad Mansuri, Aged About 29 Years, Statute Circle, Post Mandigarh, District Bhilwara.

¶14

Dharmchand S/o Gangaram Khateek, Aged About 29 Years, Sadar Bazar, Kund Gate, Shahpura District Bhilwara.

¶15

Gopal Lal S/o Kana Bhil, Aged About 33 Years, Village Shivpura (Sopura) Post Pratappura, Tehsil Shahpura, District Bhilwara.

¶16

Ravindra Kumar Nagora S/o Moolchand Nagora, Aged About 36 Years, House No.1H-18 Shastri Nagar, Old Housing Board, Bhilwara.

¶17

Lalit Kumar Jingar S/o Heera Lal Jingar, Aged About 24 Years, Near Heera Factory, Subhash Nagar, Bhilwara.

----Respondents

(2 of 6)

[SAW-338/2021]

For Appellant(s)	: Mr.	Sunil Beniwal, AAG
	Mr.	Utkarsh Singh
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	B.S. Sandhu
	Mr.	Lokesh Menariya

¶22

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶23

Judgment

¶24

28/09/2022

¶25

This special appeal is preferred against the order dated 25.05.2018 passed by the learned Single Bench whereby, the appellants were directed to award bonus marks to the respondents-petitioners based on the experience certificate, produced by them for working against the post of Office Assistant in Aajivika Scheme of Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, implemented through Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan.

¶26

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondentspetitioners had worked on the post of Office Assistant in Ajivika Scheme on contractual basis. An advertisement dated 14.02.2013, was issued by the appellants inviting applications for the post of Junior Clerk (Lower Division Clerk) (hereinafter referred to as ‘LDC’). It was indicated in the advertisement that bonus marks on the basis of length of experience exceeding one year for working in MGNREGA or in any other scheme of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, in the State of Rajasthan, shall be awarded to the candidates, as per Rule 273 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1996’). The bonus marks were denied to the respondents-

¶27

(3 of 6)

¶28

[SAW-338/2021]

¶29

petitioners on the count that the post of Office Assistant has not been included in proviso to Rule 273 of the Rules of 1996, as a post identified for grant of weightage/bonus marks while preparing merit list for the post of LDC.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellants-respondents submitted that the bonus marks had been awarded to the candidates as per the proviso to Rule 273 of the Rules of 1996. It was further submitted that the respondents had worked in Aajivika Scheme of Government of India, implemented under the aegis of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan and the work discharged by respondents-petitioners is significantly different from the post specified in proviso to Rule 273 of Rules of 1996. Counsel urged that looking to the conditions laid down in the Rules of 1996 and advertisement dated 14.02.2013, learned Single Bench ought not to have ordered for awarding bonus marks to the respondents for the purpose of appointment to the post of LDC.

¶31

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-petitioners submitted that the respondents-petitioners have worked as Office Assistant in Aajivika Scheme of Government of India, implemented by the appellant-department and had performed duties similar to LDCs. It was further submitted that since the Aajivika Scheme has been implemented through appellantdepartment, the denial of bonus marks for working in the said Scheme, is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory.

¶32

Having noted the contentions of the parties and after perusing the record, the short question which is posed for the consideration of this Court is whether the respondents-petitioners who had worked on the post of Office Assistant in Ajivika Scheme

¶33

(4 of 6)

¶34

[SAW-338/2021]

¶35

are entitled to bonus marks on the basis of length of their work experience pursuant to advertisement dated 14.02.2013 for the post of LDC.

¶36

A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Tikam Chand Verma & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. C.W. No.7316/2017) while dealing with similar controvery pertaining to the grant of bonus marks to the candidates working on the post of steno and assistant in the Mid-Day Meal Scheme of the appellantdepartment, observed as under:-

¶37

“It would thus, be seen that while granting benefit of bonus marks, in the matter of appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk, apart from granting bonus marks for working experience on the post of Lower Division Clerk, wide category of posts having no connection with the nature of duties and functions of the post of Lower Division Clerk have also been included. Therefore, it is clear that for the purposes of grant of benefit of bonus marks, the rule making authority itself decided to grant benefit irrespective of whether the work experience is acquired on a ministerial post or post other than ministerial post and has gone to the extent of providing bonus marks to even Executive, Technical posts, Supervisory posts, posts of Assistants in account, employment related work etc.

¶38

There is no basis for classification as between the category of post of Steno and Assistants on the one hand and all those posts, which have been specified in proviso to Rule 273 of the Rules of 1996 on the other. Even though, the post of Steno and Assistant, strictly speaking, may not be carrying the same duties and functions as Lower Division Clerk, for the purposes of appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk, no reasonable basis for such classification has been stated by the respondents in their reply or in any other documents as to why such classification has been made.

¶39

Present is not a case where the benefit of bonus marks/weightage has been confined only to those who have worked on the post of Lower Division Clerk in various schemes. Once, the respondents themselves have included large category of posts for the purposes of giving benefit of weightage in the

¶40

(5 of 6)

¶41

[SAW-338/2021]

¶42

matter of appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk, it cannot be said that the basis for classification is nature and duties of functions. It was for the respondents to establish and satisfy the Court, the basis for such classification so as to reach to a conclusion that there is a reasonable basis for classification and is not a case of discriminatory treatment violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶43

Once the respondents have included for the purposes of grant of bonus marks, the employees working in Mid-Day Meal Scheme of the Panchayati Raj Department, there is no rational integra for creating two different categories without any rational basis for such classification, rendering those classification unreasonable and thus, violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Respondents have utterly failed to come out as to what object is sought to be achieved by such classification, particularly when for the purposes of award of bonus marks/weightage, posts carrying different kinds of duties and functions other than those of the Lower Division Clerk, have been included. While granting benefit of working experience on the Technical posts and Supervisory posts, denying benefit of working experience on other posts like that of Steno and Assistant has no rational or logic. Such classification, therefore, is unreasonable and suffers from manifest arbitrariness.”

¶44

In view of above, it is clear that once for the purpose of grant of bonus marks, the candidates having work experience other than the post of ministerial nature, viz., executive, technical, supervisory, account, etc. have been considered pursuant to the advertisement dated 14.02.2013; denial of bonus marks to the respondents, who have worked on the post of ministerial nature i.e. Office Assistant, under Aajivika Scheme implemented by appellant-department would be absolutely unreasonable and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

¶45

The view taken by learned Single Judge while accepting the writ petition filed by the respondents vide order dated 25.05.2018

¶46

(6 of 6)

¶47

[SAW-338/2021]

¶48

is just and proper. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference.

¶49

In the result, we find no force in this appeal, which is

¶50

dismissed on merits.