Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 398 (RAJ)

Manish Vyas v. State of Rajasthan

2025-02-17

DINESH MEHTA

body2025
ORDER : (DINESH MEHTA, J.) 1. The issue involved in the present case is, as to whether the petitioner who was given compassionate appointment on the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1996) and/or under Rule 277 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996) is required to clear type test for the purpose of conferment of additional benefits, such as annual grade increments, promotions, etc. 2. Mr. Dutt, learned counsel for the petitioner raised a grievance that in spite of the fact that the petitioner has completed more than 13 years of his service, the respondents have denied him the benefits of annual grade increments on the pretext that he has not cleared the type test. 3. Learned counsel submitted that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court rendered in a bunch of writ petitions, lead case being Mohhamad Umer Rangrej Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. ( S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10333/2017 ) decided on 04.04.2019. He also relied upon the judgment dated 06.02.2020 passed by this Court in a bunch of writ petitions, lead case being Vikram Singh Rao Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. ( S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17204/2019 ). 4. Mr. Vaishnav, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- State on the other hand argued that while deciding the case of Mohhamad Umer Rangrej (supra), the amendments made in Rule 9 of the Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1996 on 02.01.2017 were not brought to the notice of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and therefore, the judgment of Mohhamad Umer Ranrej (supra) requires reconsideration. 5. While inviting Court’s attention towards clause (ii) of Rule 9 of the Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1996, learned counsel argued that in face of clause(ii) of the Rule 9 (ibid), which postulates that annual grade increments shall not be allowed until a candidate acquires requisite qualification, the petitioner cannot claim the annual grade incriments. 6. 5. While inviting Court’s attention towards clause (ii) of Rule 9 of the Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1996, learned counsel argued that in face of clause(ii) of the Rule 9 (ibid), which postulates that annual grade increments shall not be allowed until a candidate acquires requisite qualification, the petitioner cannot claim the annual grade incriments. 6. Learned counsel also relied upon Circulars dated 21.09.2010, 28.05.2018 and 20.06.2018, in order to support the State’s stance that since the petitioner has not cleared the type test, he is not entitled to be confirmed and/or for further benefits such as annual grade increments etc. 7. Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav, learned counsel for the respondent – State relied upon the judgment dated 04.12.2014 rendered in the case of Nitin Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. ( S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2394/2014 ) so also the judgment in the case of Bharat Bhushan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. ( S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17889/2015 , decided on 09.02.2016). 8. Mr. Dutt contended that the basic Rules governing Ministerial Posts are, the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 1999’) and submitted that they are applicable to all the departments with or without any specific amendment given in the relevant Service Rules dealing with the manner of recruitment, qualification and other incidental issues relating to ministerial posts mentioned in the schedule. 9. Learned counsel submitted that the Rules of 1999 came to be amended by the State Government vide notification dated 05.07.2010 in the manner that in place of ‘type test’, a candidate was required to have ‘computer proficiency’ as mentioned in the Column No.5 of Schedule-I. And soon after the Rules of 1999 were amended, the Department of Personnel issued a circular dated 19.08.2010 and provided that the candidate to be appointed on the post of LDC shall have to clear type test on computer. 10. However, since there was a typographical/inadvertent error, said circular dated 19.08.2010 came to be amended immediately (within a period of one month) by circular dated 21.09.2010 and in place of ‘clearing type test on computer’, the expression ‘acquiring computer qualification’ was provided. 11. It was argued by Mr. 10. However, since there was a typographical/inadvertent error, said circular dated 19.08.2010 came to be amended immediately (within a period of one month) by circular dated 21.09.2010 and in place of ‘clearing type test on computer’, the expression ‘acquiring computer qualification’ was provided. 11. It was argued by Mr. Dutt that since the Rules of 1999 have been amended on 05.07.2010, before the petitioner was appointed, he was only supposed to acquire computer proficiency and since Rule 9 of the Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1996 provides regularisation on acquiring the prescribed qualification, therefore, as per the circular dated 04.05.2017, the respondents at the best could have deferred grant of benefits of increments in pay scale until December 2014 – the date when the petitioner acquired RS-CIT certificate. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 13. So far as reliance upon judgment in the case of Nitin Choudhary (supra) and Bharat Bhushan (supra) made by Mr. Vaishnav is concerned, the same is absolutely misplaced. Both these judgments are only to the extent of clearing a type test mandatorily for the purpose of regularisation and grant of benefits; whereas the dispute in the case in hand is as to whether the petitioner who is having RS-CIT Certificate is required to clear Type Test. 14. True it is, that in the case of Mohhamad Umer Rangrej (supra), the relevant provision of the Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1996 and the Rules of 1999 were not taken into consideration. Hence, it will be apt to dilate upon the provisions and the argument of Mr. Vaishnav. 15. It may be noted that the Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 contains a specific provision for compassionate appointment. Rule 277 of the Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 provides thus:- Rule 277 – Recruitment of a Member of a family of the deceased employee. (1). In the case of a deceased employee of the Panchayat Samiti/Zila Parishad service, one member of his family who is not already employed under the Panchayat Samiti/Zila Parishad/ Central/ State Government or Statutory Board/ Organisation/ Corporation, owned or controlled by the Central /State Government, shall on making an application for the purpose, be given a suitable employment in the service, as soon as practicable only against an existing vacancy, in relaxation of the normal recruitment rules, *provided such member fulfils the educational qualifications prescribed for the post and is also otherwise qualified for such service. In the event of non-availability of a vacancy or in case any of the members of the family being unqualified or minor, is not found suitable or eligible for immediate employment, then such case shall be considered immediately on the availability of the post or any or one of them becoming qualified or eligible for such. employment under these rules. (2) Rules made by State Government and as amended from time to time in this behalf shall be applicable to such employees also. *emphasis supplied. 16. It is noteworthy that in the case of Mohhamad Umer Rangrej (supra), the scheme of the Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1996, more particularly, the provisions contained in Rule 7 and Rule 9(i) of the Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1996 were not brought to the notice of Coordinate Bench. If Rule 7 of the Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1996 is perused, it comes to fore that for appointment, an eligible candidate must possess prescribed qualification for the post under concerned service rules at the time of appointment. Rule 7 of the Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1996 reads thus:- “ 7. Qualifications :- (1) The dependent should possess the qualification prescribed for the post under the concerned service rules at the time of appointment. (2) While being considered for appointment to Class IV service, the requirement of educational qualification for the post shall be dispensed with. (3) Before a dependent is appointed, the Appointing Authority shall satisfy itself that he/she is otherwise fit for appointment in Government Service looking to his/her character and physical fitness and fulfilment of other general conditions prescribed in the concerned service rules.” 17. At the time of petitioner’s appointment (21.07.2011), the Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 had a provision requiring a candidate to clear a type test for appointment to the post of LDC. 18. Para No.2 at page No. 3 of the judgment rendered in the case of Mohhamad Umer Rangrej (supra), takes note of the argument as advanced by Mr. Vaishnav, but has not been considered and dealt with or in other words finding regarding import of Rule 9 of the Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1996 is absent. 19. 18. Para No.2 at page No. 3 of the judgment rendered in the case of Mohhamad Umer Rangrej (supra), takes note of the argument as advanced by Mr. Vaishnav, but has not been considered and dealt with or in other words finding regarding import of Rule 9 of the Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1996 is absent. 19. According to this Court, the State’s reliance upon clause (ii) of Rule 9 of the Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1996 is not relevant, but what is relevant is, the provisions given in Rule 7 of the Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1996 and Rule 266 of the Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 which enjoins upon a candidate to possess qualification as prescribed for the post under the concerned service rules at the time of appointment. 20. Rule 9 of the Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1996, as a matter of fact, is not a rule prescribing qualification, but is only an enabling provision to give a respite to the candidates appointed on compassionate ground - allowing them to acquire the necessary typing skills, so that their qualification is equal to other persons holding such posts. 21. It is not in dispute that Rule 266(1) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 so far as introduction of computer proficiency is concerned came to be amended on 18.12.2012, after the petitioner was appointed on the post of LDC (21.07.2011). 22. This Court agrees with the contention raised by Mr. Dutt that the basic provision which deals with eligibility and qualification to the post of LDC and all other posts mentioned in Schedule-I are, the Rules of 1999. Maybe, the Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 which stipulates requisite qualification in the form of Rule 266(1), came to be amended later on (on 18.12.2012) but such amendment is only a corresponding amendment introduced in light of the amendment made in the Rules of 1999 and State’s policy decision to ensure that LDCs appointed are proficient in computers. 23. The circular of the State Government dated 19.08.2010 which has been strongly relied upon by Mr. Vaishnav makes it abundantly clear that the same came to be issued in the advent of amendment in relation to the educational qualification brought by the State vide notification dated 05.07.2010. 24. 23. The circular of the State Government dated 19.08.2010 which has been strongly relied upon by Mr. Vaishnav makes it abundantly clear that the same came to be issued in the advent of amendment in relation to the educational qualification brought by the State vide notification dated 05.07.2010. 24. True it is, that the circular dated 19.08.2010 mentions that a candidate has to clear type test on computer but the subsequent circular dated 21.09.2010 which has been issued within a period of one month of the earlier circular, makes it clear that the stipulation made in the circular dated 19.08.2010 so far as giving ‘type test of computer’ is concerned, was erroneous. If the circulars of 19.08.2010 and 21.09.2010 are read carefully, it is apparent that they make a specific reference to the Rules of 1999, so also the notification dated 05.07.2010 by which the Rules of 1999 came to be amended. 25. This Court is, therefore, clearly of the view that after the amendment was brought in the Rules of 1999 (w.e.f 05.07.2010), the requisite educational qualification for the post of LDC is, senior secondary education and computer proficiency as mentioned in Schedule-I and not the type test, as was prevailing prior to 05.07.2010. 26. Petitioner has indisputably acquired computer proficiency or RS-CIT certificate in December, 2014 and therefore, he cannot be asked to clear type test as his appointment was after 05.07.2010 (on 21.07.2011), more particularly, in absence of any such condition or stipulation in his appointment order. 27. For what has been discussed hereinabove and following the judgment in the case of Mohhamad Umar Rangrej (supra), the petition is allowed. 28. The respondents are directed to give due increments and all other consequential benefits, including promotion to the petitioner in accordance with law - as per the provisions contained in Rule 9 of the Rules of 1996 so also the circular dated 04.05.2017. 29. The respondents shall obviously give notional increments to the petitioner from the date of appointment up to the date, when he acquired RS-CIT certificate (December, 2014) but shall nevertheless give actual increments after December, 2014 and promotion if the petitioner is otherwise eligible. 30. The respondents are directed to pass requisite order in line with the adjudication made hereinabove within a period of two months from today. The arrears be paid within a period of four months of the order instant. 31. 30. The respondents are directed to pass requisite order in line with the adjudication made hereinabove within a period of two months from today. The arrears be paid within a period of four months of the order instant. 31. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.