JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. The core question involved in the present writ petition is; “whether the petitioners working on the post of Lower Division Clerks and Upper Division Clerks, in the Panchayati Raj Department can lay their claim against 12.5% reservation available for the ‘ministerial staff’ of the departments of the Government, as envisaged under Rule 6 (iii) of the Rajasthan Subordinate Accounts Service Rules, 1963”. 2. The facts within the precincts of the question quoted above are that the petitioners having been appointed substantively are working as LDCs and UDCs in the Department of Panchayati Raj. The respondent – Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the RPSC”) issued an advertisement dated 18.09.2013, inviting applications for 3491 posts of Junior Accountant and 156 posts of Tehsil Revenue Accountant under the Rajasthan Subordinate Accountant Service Rules, 1963 (here in after referred to as “the Rules of 1963”). Out of the total advertised vacancies, 437 posts have been kept reserved for ‘ministerial staff’ working in the departments of Government of Rajasthan as stipulated under Rule 6 (iii) of the Rules of 1963. 3. The petitioners being employees working in the various Panchayat Samitis/Zila Parishads in the State of Rajasthan, submitted their application forms vying against said 437 posts reserved for ‘ministerial staff of departments of Government. The petitioners, having taken the written examination conducted by the RPSC, have allegedly scored higher than the cut off marks for the category of ministerial employees, which was at 429.94. Before the petitioners could be considered for appointment against the above referred reservation quota of 12.5%, a letter dated 11.5.2017 came to be issued by the Secretary, Finance (Revenue Department), addressed to the Secretary, RPSC clarifying certain issues, out of which point No.3 is relevant for the present cause, which provided that the employees working in University, Board, Corporation, Company, Panchayati Raj Institutions, Local Self Department, Cooperative Societies, Electricity Distribution/Production Corporation etc., were not to be treated to be the employees working in the Government Departments, and thus do not qualify against the 12.5% reservations for the ministerial employees’ of the State Government. 4. 4. It will not be out of place to reproduce relevant part of point No.3 of the above order/letter dated 11.5.2017, which reads thus :- “3- fcUnq la[;k 4 ds Øe esa jktdh; foHkkx ds laLFkk;h :i ls fu;qDr ea=kyf;d deZpkjh dks gh vkjf{kr inksa ij fu;qfDr gsrq ik= ekuk tk ldrk gSA pw¡fd vk;ksx }kjk iwoZ o"kksZa esa ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds dkfeZdksa dks ea=kyf;d oxZ ds vkj{k.k dk ykHk fn;k x;k gS vr% jkT; ds leLr U;k;ky;ksa esa laLFkk;h :i ls fu;qDr ea=kyf;d deZpkjh vkjf{kr inksa ij fu;qfDr ds ik= ekus tk;sxsaA jkT; ljdkj ds foHkkxksa dks NksM+dj vU; deZpkjh ;Fkk fo’ofo|ky;] cksMZ] fuxe] dEiuh] iapk;rh jkt laLFkkvksa] Lok;Ùk’kk"kh fudk;ksa] lgdkjh laLFkkvksa] fo|qr forj.k@mRiknu fuxe bR;kfn ds deZpkjh jktdh; foHkkx ds vUrxZr ugha vkrs gSaA vr% budks ea=kyf;d deZpkjh laoxZ ls dfu"B ys[kkdkj HkrhZ ds fy, fu/kkZfjr 12-5 izfr’kr vkjf{kr inksa ij vkj{k.k dk ykHk ugha fn;k tk ldrk gSA” 5. To have a better appraisal of the controversy, substantive provision contained in Rule 6 (iii) of the Rules of 1963 is also being reproduced here infra :- “6. Method of Recruitment.- Recruitment to the Service shall be made in the manner specified in column 3 of the Schedule by recruitment in accordance with Part IV of these Rules: (i) … … … (ii) … … … (iii) Provided also further that 12½ of the posts of Junior Accountants to be filled in by direct recruitment shall be reserved for being filled in from amongst the ministerial staff of all the departments of the Government holding a post in the Cadre substantively, subject to their being found otherwise eligible for such recruitment under the Rules. This reservations shall be carried forward only to the next succeeding year.” 6. This reservations shall be carried forward only to the next succeeding year.” 6. Realizing that their way to 12.5% quota prescribed under Rule 6 (iii) has been blocked as a result of the said order dated 11.5.2017, the petitioners have invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following prayers :- “It is, therefore, prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and:- (i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the communication dated 11.5.2017 (Annexure-9) be declared illegal and hence, set aside; (ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the petitioners be declared entitled for consideration of their candidature as Departmental candidates/Ministerial Employee in Junior Accountant and Tehsil Revenue Accountant Exam – 2013; (iii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may be directed to accord appointment to the petitioners as Junior Accountant in case they find place in merit under Ministerial Employee category in Junior Accountant and Tehsil Revenue Accountant Exam – 2013; (iv) any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favor of the petitioners’ (v) Costs throughout may kindly be awarded in favor of the petitioners.” 7. On 27.07.2017, this Court after hearing the counsel for the parties had as an interim measure, directed the respondents to consider petitioners’ candidature for the purpose of appointment on the post of Junior Accountant under 12.5% quota reserved for State Government employees’, while maintaining that their appointments shall be subject to the outcome of the present writ petition. 8. With a view to get the rights of the parties determined or adjudicated with certitude, counsel for the rival parties jointly requested the Court to decide the present writ petition at this stage itself. 9. Mr. Deepesh Singh Beniwal, learned counsel for the petitioners opened his arguments by reading the provision of Section 89 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereafter referred to as “the Act of 1994”), particularly sub-section (2) thereof to impress that the petitioners’ posts namely Lower Division Clerks and Upper Division Clerks fall within the purview of ‘ministerial employees’. 9. Mr. Deepesh Singh Beniwal, learned counsel for the petitioners opened his arguments by reading the provision of Section 89 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereafter referred to as “the Act of 1994”), particularly sub-section (2) thereof to impress that the petitioners’ posts namely Lower Division Clerks and Upper Division Clerks fall within the purview of ‘ministerial employees’. Sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 89 of the Act of 1994 is reproduced hereunder for ready reference :- “Section 89.- Constitutions of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Service: (1) There shall be constituted for the State service designated as the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Service and hereafter in this section referred to as the service and recruitment thereto shall be made district wise ; Provided that selection for the posts specified in clause (i), (iii) and (iv) of sub-section (2) shall be made at the State level. (2) The Service may be divided into different categories, each category being divided into different grades, and shall, consist of- (i) Village level workers; (ii) Gram Sevevikas; (iii) Primary and Upper Primary School teachers, (iv) Ministerial establishment, (except Accountants and Junior Accountants); and (v) Prabodhak and Senior Prabodhak.” 10. Having recited the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 89 of the Act of 1994, Mr. Beniwal submitted that all the services under the aegis of the Panchayati Raj Department have been categorized and designated vide sub-section (2) of Section 89 of the Act of 1994 and in clause IV thereof, i.e. ‘ministerial establishment’, LDCs and UDCs have been enumerated as no other category seems to embrace posts of LDCs and UDCs. 11. The counsel for the petitioners thereafter referred to Rule 258 (1) of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1996”), which enlists various categories of posts to be appointed in Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads. Clause (c) thereof expressly includes Upper Division Clerks and Lower Division Clerks within the ambit of ministerial services. 12. With the help of the aforesaid provisions, contained in Section 89 (2) of the Act of 1994 and Rule 289 (c) (i) and (ii) of the Rules of 1996, counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners being the LDCs and UDCs are undisputedly ‘ministerial employees’. 13. In a bid to lend support to his arguments, Mr. 12. With the help of the aforesaid provisions, contained in Section 89 (2) of the Act of 1994 and Rule 289 (c) (i) and (ii) of the Rules of 1996, counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners being the LDCs and UDCs are undisputedly ‘ministerial employees’. 13. In a bid to lend support to his arguments, Mr. Beniwal referred to Rule 7 (19) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, defining ‘ministerial servant’. For the sake of ready reference, the same is being quoted hereunder :- “7 (19).- Ministerial servant:- means a Government servant of a subordinate service whose duties are entirely clerical, and any other class of servants expressly defined as such by General or Special order of Government (Appendix-XII, Part-II, Ministerial Service).” 14. Having navigated the Court through various statutory provisions, counsel for the petitioners submitted that a bare reading of clause (iii) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1963, conjointly with the above quoted provisions leaves no room for ambiguity that the petitioners’ candidature is required to be considered against the 12.5% quota reserved for the ministerial staff of department of Government. Learned counsel submitted that three factors are required to be reckoned while determining the eligibility of an employee to be considered under clause (iii) of Rule 6; viz. (1) he must be an employee of department of Government; (2) he should hail from ministerial staff; and (3) he must be substantively appointed. 15. Mr. Beniwal submitted that the petitioners satisfy all the three conditions and thus squarely fall within the frame of ministerial staff. Learned counsel then proceeded to persuade that the petitioners are Government employees. In this process, he submitted that the department of Panchayati Raj is an arm of the State Government including all the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads etc., over which the Government has a pervasive control. 16. Relying upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Niyaz Mohammed Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anrs., reported in 1997 (3) WLC (Raj.) p.302, duly followed by another Division Bench in its judgment dated 4.1.2005 in case of Richhpal Singh & 283 Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2005 (1) WLC (Raj.) p.548; he submitted that this issue is no more res-integra. 17. State of Rajasthan & Anrs., reported in 1997 (3) WLC (Raj.) p.302, duly followed by another Division Bench in its judgment dated 4.1.2005 in case of Richhpal Singh & 283 Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2005 (1) WLC (Raj.) p.548; he submitted that this issue is no more res-integra. 17. Counsel for the petitioners read and relied upon the discussions made by the Division Bench in Niyaz Mohd’s case in para No.18, 19 and 20 of the judgment and contended that the Division Bench of this Court has conclusively held that the services of the Panchayati Raj Department are services of the State Government. The conclusion deduced by the Division Bench, encapsulated in para 20 of the said report is being reproduced here under :- “20. We are therefore, of the view that the Panchayat Service constituted under Section 89 of the Act, 1994 or under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 is the civil service of the State as it has all the characteristics of that service. The members of the Panchayat Service, therefore, hold the office for a civil post. The teachers working in the Government Schools which are under the control of the Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads, are, therefore, the civil servant under the State Government and are entitled for relaxation of three years age as has been made applicable to the State Government employees. We may, however, make it clear that the view taken by us in the present case applies only to the services constituted under Section 89 of the Act, 1994 or under Section 86 of the Act, 1959; but will not apply to other employees of the Panchayati Raj Institutions who are not the members of the Panchayat Service. The other employees of the Panchayati Raj institutions, who are not the members of the Panchayat Service, though working with the Panchayat, cannot be treated as the members of the Civil Services” 18. Cruse of the Division Bench judgment rendered in case of Richhpal Singh’s case (supra), contained in para 43 is also quoted below :- “43. The other employees of the Panchayati Raj institutions, who are not the members of the Panchayat Service, though working with the Panchayat, cannot be treated as the members of the Civil Services” 18. Cruse of the Division Bench judgment rendered in case of Richhpal Singh’s case (supra), contained in para 43 is also quoted below :- “43. We may also notice Sub-section (11) of Section 89, which provides that post encadred in the service constituted under this Section, shall be entitled to payment of the pension by the State Government our of the consolidated fund of the State in accordance with the rules made by it in that behalf. Thus, we conclude that the recruitment to the post of Primary School Teacher or Gr.III Teacher falls in the category of State Service. The Rajasthan State Legislative Assembly is competent to confer additional functions on the RPSC with respect to recruitment of Teachers Gr.III, as they belong to “State Service” designated as Rajasthan panchayat Samiti & Zila Parishad Service. Accordingly, first contention is rejected.” 19. In view of the aforesaid conclusions drawn by two Divisions Benches of this Court, Mr. Beniwal submitted that there remains no doubt about the proposition that the petitioners working in various Panchayat Samitis/Zila Parishads are Government employees and the petitioners squarely fall within the scope of Rule 6 (iii) of the Rules of 1963 and are thus entitled to be considered against 12.5% quota reserved for ‘ministerial staff’ of the State Government. 20. Per contra, Mr. Rajpurohit, learned counsel for the respondents strongly refuted the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners and submitted that sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1963 provides reservation only for the ministerial staff of the departments of Government holding the post in cadre substantively. He submitted that to take advantage of the reservation, a candidate is first required to satisfy that his service fall in definition of ministerial service. He submitted that the term ‘ministerial service’ has been defined under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1958”), which reads as under :- “Section 9. The Ministerial Service shall consist of- A. Members of the services included in Schedule III B. Persons who hold in a substantive capacity, posts included in Schedule III and not borne on the cadre of any other services. The Ministerial Service shall consist of- A. Members of the services included in Schedule III B. Persons who hold in a substantive capacity, posts included in Schedule III and not borne on the cadre of any other services. C. Persons appointed on an ad-hoc basis pending final selection according to the rules of the Integration Department, on posts borne on the cadre of the services referred to in clause (a) or on posts referred in clause (b).” 21. Counsel for the respondents thereafter submitted that the term ‘staff’ has not been defined in any of the rules, therefore, it would be apt to refer the definition of term ‘staff’ given in the Oxford Dictionary, which means: “the employee of an organization”. 22. While referring to the aforesaid provisions, Mr. Rajpurohit submitted that with a combined reading of definition of ‘ministerial servant’ as contained in Rules of 1951 and Rules of 1958 and the dictionary meaning, it can easily be said that ‘ministerial staff’ is group of persons, working in the ministerial services, which refers to the persons whose duties are entirely clerical. In other words, he tried to canvass that the petitioners being employees of the Panchayatyi Raj Institution, which is an autonomous body cannot be treated to be ministerial staff of Rajasthan State and are thus, not eligible to be considered for reservation under Rule 6 (iii) of the Rules of 1963. 23. In addition to the above arguments, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the Panchayati Raj Institutions are self- Government institutions and the power, authority, duties and responsibilities of such institutions have been carved out under Article 243 G of the Constitution of India, wherein they have their own budgets, source of revenue and power to spend. As such, the services rendered by the petitioners under these institutions cannot be treated to be the services of the State Government. 24. Counsel appearing for the State Government also submitted that the expression ‘Rajasthan Government service’ means the persons whose conditions of services are regulated by the Rules made by the Governor of Rajasthan in exercise of powers available to him under Article 309 of the Constitution. According to him, since the petitioners’ services are governed by the Rules of 1996, they cannot be termed as Government employees. 25. Having made these submissions, Mr. According to him, since the petitioners’ services are governed by the Rules of 1996, they cannot be termed as Government employees. 25. Having made these submissions, Mr. Rajpurohit submitted that the petitioners cannot be considered to be ministerial staff of the State of Rajasthan so as to lay their claim against 12.5% quota, reserved under Rule 6 (iii) of the Rules of 1963. 26. Mr. Beniwal, joining the arguments in rejoinder, submitted that the argument of Mr. Rajpurohit that only those employees are Government employees whose service conditions are governed by the Rules framed by the Governor under Article 309 of the Constitution is fallacious inasmuch as the Governor or the State Government frames rules under Article 309 of the Constitution in absence of any substantive provisions governing the service conditions of an employee. He added that merely because separate service conditions and rules have been framed in the form of Rules of 1996, the petitioners cannot be said to be outside the purview of the Government employees. In addition thereto, Mr. Beniwal reiterated that in view of the wide definition of ‘ministerial staff’ contained under Clause 9 of Rule 7 of Rajasthan Service Rules coupled with the fact that the petitioners are held to be part of the ministerial staff and Government employees by Division Bench, they are entitled to be considered against 437 posts, earmarked for the ministerial staff of the Government of Rajasthan. 27. Heard learned counsels for the rival parties and given my thoughtful consideration over the statutory provisions and the judgments cited at Bar. 28. A bare look at the provisions contained in Rule 6 (iii) of the Rules of 1963 reveals that an employee can be said to be falling in the scope of sub-rule (iii) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1963, if he can set himself on trivets of three conditions namely (1) he must be a ministerial staff secondly; (ii) he must hail from department of Government and (iii) he must have been appointed substantively. 29. As far as third condition is concerned, there is no quarrel that the petitioners have been appointed substantively. The bone of contention is only as to whether the petitioners satisfy the other twin conditions of being Government employee and ministerial staff. 30. 29. As far as third condition is concerned, there is no quarrel that the petitioners have been appointed substantively. The bone of contention is only as to whether the petitioners satisfy the other twin conditions of being Government employee and ministerial staff. 30. To find out whether the petitioners fulfill the other two requisite conditions, this Court deems it appropriate to first decide as to whether Panchayati Raj Institution or Department falls within the contours of ‘department of Government’. For finding answer to this question, this Court is not required to dilate upon much, as two Division Benches of this Court have already passed detailed judgments and held that the employees of Panchayati Raj Departments are Government servants. The post involved in Niyaz Mohammed’s case (supra) was that of a Teacher Grade-III in a Government Primary School of a Panchayat Samiti, when the Division Bench of this Court held that the petitioner in that case, is a Government employee and civil servant under the State Government and resultantly, entitled for three years’ relaxation in age, as applicable to the State Government employees. 31. The Division Bench in another case of Richhpal Singh (supra) has reiterated its earlier view and held that the recruitment to the post of Primary School Teacher Grade-III falls in the category of State services. (As concluded in para 43 of the judgment reproduced here-in-above). 32. In view of above two judgments, the controversy as to whether the petitioners working under various Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads are government servant or not or the employee of the department of Government is a foregone conclusion and nothing remains to be decided or considered on this aspect of the matter. 33. Coming to the other limb of the trivet, as to whether the petitioners fall in the ambit of ‘ministerial staff’ or not, some adjudication is required to be made, as this question has perhaps not been decided so far, by this Court. 34. A bare book at the provisions contained in Rule 258 (c) (i) and (ii) of the Rules of 1996 reveals that the petitioners working as LDCs/UDCs are covered by the expression ‘ministerial staff’ as the term ‘ministerial service’ includes Upper Division Clerk and Lower Division Clerk. 34. A bare book at the provisions contained in Rule 258 (c) (i) and (ii) of the Rules of 1996 reveals that the petitioners working as LDCs/UDCs are covered by the expression ‘ministerial staff’ as the term ‘ministerial service’ includes Upper Division Clerk and Lower Division Clerk. Even the definition of ‘ministerial servant’ as provided in Clause (19) of Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Service Rules reproduced above, leave no room for ambiguity that Lower Division Clerks and Upper Division Clerks fall within the scope of ministerial servant. 35. The term ‘ministerial’ means clerical or subordinate as defined in Oxford Dictionary as under : “ministerial/adjective & noun. [ORIGIN French ministerial or late Latin ministerials, from Latin ministerium MINISTRY, but app. Interpreted as deriv, of MINISTER noun: see – IAL] A adjective. 1 Pertaining to the office, function, or character of a minister of religion. 2 Pertaining to or entrusted with the execution of the law or the commands of a superiors. 3 Subsidiary or instrumental in achieving a purpose etc. 4 Of or pertaining to a Minister of State or a government department; supporting the Government against the Opposition.” The term ‘ministerial’ as defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, Edition-IX, is also quoted hereunder :- “ministerial, adj (16c) Of or relating to an act that involves obedience to instruction or laws instead of discretion, judgment, or skill <the court clerk’s ministerial duties include recording judgments on the docket>.” 36. In view of the above discussions, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the posts of LDCs and UDCs held by the petitioners fall within the scope of ministerial staff. In opinion of this Court, the term ‘ministerial’ has been used as an adjective to define the expression “staff of all the departments of the Government”. In other words sub-rule (iii) of Rule 6 seeks to embrace staff of all the departments of Government with a condition that such staff should be engaged in ministerial work. As such, even if the post of LDCs and UDCs have not been strictly defined as ministerial staff as per this Court, by very nature of the duties, discharged by the petitioners (LDCs and UDCs), they fall within the expression of ‘ministerial staff’. 37. As such, even if the post of LDCs and UDCs have not been strictly defined as ministerial staff as per this Court, by very nature of the duties, discharged by the petitioners (LDCs and UDCs), they fall within the expression of ‘ministerial staff’. 37. As an upshot of the analysis above, this Court has reached to a conclusion that the petitioners, working as LDCs and UDCs in various Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads, discharging ministerial work, are employees of the State of Rajasthan and are as such held entitled to stake their claim against 437 posts reserved for “ministerial staff of all the departments of the Government holding the post substantively”. 38. The writ petition is thus, allowed. Condition No.3 of the letter dated 11.05.2017 of the Secretary, Finance (Revenue) to the extent, it excludes employees of Panchayati Raj Department is declared illegal and hence quashed. 39. On 27.07.2017, this Court had passed the following order as interim measure :- “In the meantime, the State-respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioners for the purpose of appointment on the post of Junior Accountant as substantive employee under 12.5% State Government Employees Quota. However, the petitioners’ appointment shall be subject to outcome of this writ petition.” 40. The respondents are directed to provide appointment orders and appropriate posting to such of the petitioners, who stand in the merit list and are otherwise eligible. Needful be done within a period of one month from today.