Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Kailash Chandar Lohar … on 1 July, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:28162-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 779/2025
1. State of Rajasthan, through the Secretary to the
Government, Department of Panchayati Raj, Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Rajsamand,
District Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
Kailash Chandar Lohar son of Shri Bheru Lal Lohar, resident of
Amet, Tehsil and District Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. I.R. Choudhary, AAG with
Mr. Kuldeep Singh, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : ---
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Order
01/07/2025
Per Hon’ble Mr. Sandeep Shah, J:
The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated
29th August 2023 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11333 of
2017 titled “Kailash Chandar Lohar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.“,
whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the three writ petitions
filed by the petitioners therein, including the writ petition refer to
(supra) while observing that NRHM Scheme is being run under the
aegis of Panchayati Raj Department, and therefore, the benefit
quo the same are to the granted to the petitioner.
(Downloaded on 18/07/2025 at 09:45:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28162-DB] (2 of 12) [SAW-779/2025]
I.A. No.01/2024:
2. An application under section 5 of the Limitation Act has been
filed seeking condonation of delay of 316 days in filing the present
Special Appeal (Writ).
3. A perusal of the contents of Para Nos.2 to 6 will reveal that
no reasons, what to say sufficient reasons, have been specified in
the application, nor have any details or relevant dates about the
processing of the file for filing the appeal been given, and it has
merely been stated that the delay was due to administrative
decisions and that the delay is minor. We observe that the
explanation offered by the appellants is not at all satisfactory.
4. However, we have glanced at the order passed by the writ
Court, with a view to satisfy ourselves whether the appellants
would suffer irreparable loss if the delay in filing the Special
Appeal (Writ) is not condoned. We have glanced at the order
passed by the writ Court also to find whether there is any merit in
the present Special Appeal (Writ).
5. The respondent (writ petitioner) had filed the writ petitioner
stating therein that the petitioner, is having the qualification for
the post of LDC and that the petitioner was work on contract basis
at T.B. Unit Vallabhnagar (Bhinder), Udiapur under the NRHM
Project, since, 08th May 2008. The petitioner had further stated
that subsequently, an advertisement dated 14th February 2013
was issued by the Panchayati Raj Department inviting applications
for appointment to the post of LDC, wherein bonus marks were
awarded for each year of work experience as a contractual
employee, up to a maximum of 30 marks for three years. It was
(Downloaded on 18/07/2025 at 09:45:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28162-DB] (3 of 12) [SAW-779/2025]the case of the petitioner that although he had applied pursuant to
the said advertisement, he was not granted bonus marks based
upon the experience certificate on the ground that he was working
under the NRHM scheme and not under Panchayati Raj
Department and also for the aforesaid reason his experience
certificate was not considered.
6. The petitioner had asserted that by an order dated
02nd October 2010, issued by the Medical and Health Department,
all the schemes running under the NRHM or under the Department
of Medical and Health, up-to the District level were handed over to
the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department for
effective operation and proper coordination. It was thus asserted
that even the NRHM scheme was handed over to the Panchayati
Raj Department, and since the petitioner was appointed on a
contractual basis under the NRHM scheme, he was also entitled to
receive bonus marks. The petitioner also referred to the Circular
dated 26th May 2017 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) issued by
the Panchayati Raj Department, wherein, pursuant to the
Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Transferred Activities) Rules, 2011, and
in light of a judgment passed by this Court, it was observed that
the NRHM scheme and Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, up to the District
level, had been transferred to the Rural Development and
Panchayati Raj Department, and the candidates working under
these two schemes shall also be entitled for the grant of bonus
marks for the work undertaken under the scheme.
7. The respondent, on the other hand, raised an objection
before the learned Single Judge that the respondent-appellant was
(Downloaded on 18/07/2025 at 09:45:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28162-DB] (4 of 12) [SAW-779/2025]not working under the Panchayati Raj Department or MGNREGA,
and therefore, was not entitled for grant of bonus marks as per
Rule 273 of Rules of 1996.
8. The learned Single Judge, after considering the arguments
from both sides, allowed the writ petition while relying upon the
judgment passed by the Single Bench, in the case of “Pushkar
Garg v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.” in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.2622 of 2018 and Division Bench judgment in “Tikam Chand
Verma & Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.” in D.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.7316 of 2016 and clearly observed that the petitioners
are entitled for the same relief has granted to other similarly
situated persons.
9. Mr. I.R. Choudhary, the learned Additional Advocate General,
submits that the NHRM Scheme was being run by the Medical &
Health Department and not by the Panchayati Raj Department. He
thus asserts that the services rendered under departments other
than MGNREGA cannot be considered for the grant of bonus
marks, in view of the clear language of Rule 273 of the Rules of
1996. He further refers to the decision in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No. 12914 of 2021 titled “Giresh Dindor v. State of Rajasthan &
Ors.” to submit that the decision of the learned Single Judge in the
case referred to (supra) has attained finality, as even the D.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.366 of 2022 filed against the above-mentioned
order has been dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court.
10. He has further relied upon the judgment dated 19 th February
2025 passed by Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal
(Downloaded on 18/07/2025 at 09:45:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28162-DB] (5 of 12) [SAW-779/2025](Writ) No.292 of 2024 titled “Himmat Singh v. State of Rajasthan
& Ors.“.
11. The learned Additional Advocate General, however, candidly
admitted that after considering the case of ‘Giresh Dindor’, a
Division Bench of this Court, in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.182
of 2025 titled “State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Ramdeve Mali”, has
already dismissed an identical appeal filed by the State
Government.
12. Having considered the arguments raised by the learned
Additional Advocate General, we may, first of all, refer to the Rule
273 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj, Rules, 1996, which provides
as under:-
“Rule 273. Written test.__ The Committee may hold a
written test for all categories of [post except drivers, Class IV
and post specified in clause (iii) of sub-section 2 of the
Section 89]. [The examination shall be conducted as per
directions of the State Govt. (Deleted) D.E.C. will prepare the
merit list on such basis:
Provided that selections for the various posts shall be
made in accordance with the general directions given by the
State Government from time to time in this respect. It may
not be necessary to call the candidate for interview if so
provided in those directions.
[Proviso Deleted]
[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 one 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(Downloaded on 18/07/2025 at 09:45:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28162-DB] (6 of 12) [SAW-779/2025]Training, Coordinator Supervision, other than through
placement agency, in MGNREGA or in any other scheme of the
Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj in the
State.
Explanation__Wherever percentage of the marks
cannot be ascertained due to grade awarded to the candidate
in the particular examination, the median of the grade
awarded to the candidate in such examination shall be basis
for the preparation of the merit list.]
[Provided also that in case of appointment to the post
of Class IV, merit shall be prepared by the Appointing
Authority on the basis at such weightage as may be specified
by the State Government for the marks obtained in Secondary
examination from a recognized Board and such marks as may
be specified by the State Government having regard to the
length of experience exceeding one year acquired by persons
engaged on the post of assistant (Saharan Karamchari) in
MGNREGA scheme in the state.]”
13. A perusal of the Rule will reveal that a proviso was added by
way of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Rules, 2013
with effect from 30th January 2013, wherein, as far as recruitment
to the post of LDC is concerned, the weightage to be given was
specified for the length of experience exceeding one year acquired
by persons engaged on various posts under MGNREGA or in any
other scheme of the Department of Rural Development and
Panchayati Raj in the State.
14. Admittedly, a perusal of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj
(Transferred Activities) Rules, 2011, as also the order dated
02nd October 2010 and the Circular dated 26 th May 2017
(Annexure-5 of the writ petition), clearly reveals that, up to the
District level, the services of various persons working under the
NRHM Scheme department was transferred to the Panchayati Raj
Department, and thereafter, the NRHM scheme was implemented
(Downloaded on 18/07/2025 at 09:45:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28162-DB] (7 of 12) [SAW-779/2025]
by the Panchayati Raj Department. It is thus clear that the work
undertaken by the petitioner was in a scheme administered and
controlled by the Panchayati Raj Department, and therefore, the
learned Single Judge rightly directed the grant of bonus marks
based upon the experience certificate possessed by the writ
petitioner.
15. Furthermore, the issue in this regard is no longer res integra,
in view of the judgment dated 08 th May 2025 passed by the
Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.182
of 2025 titled “State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Ramdev Mali”, wherein
the learned Division Bench observed as under:-
“8. Mr. I.R. Choudhary, the learned Additional Advocate
General, however, refers to the decision in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.12914 of 2021 titled as “Giresh Dindor vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors.” to submit that the decision of the learned
Single Judge rendered in the case of “Giresh Dindor” (supra)
has now attained finality as D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.366 of
2022 has been dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
9. On this issue, we observe that the learned Single Judge
while deciding the writ petition in the present case bestowed
due consideration to the decision in “Giresh Dindor” (supra)
and observed that the decision in the case of “Sumer Singh”
(supra) was not brought to the notice of the writ Court when
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12914 of 2021 came to be
dismissed. We shall also indicate that the Special Appeal
preferred by “Giresh Dindor” was dismissed without hearing
him as no one appeared on his behalf even in the second
round when the said Special Appeal was called out for
hearing.
10. In the order dated 17th October 2022, the writ Court
has referred to the decision rendered by the Division Bench in
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6005 of 2013 with connected
matters titled “Sumer Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan &
Ors.“. We see that this is not in dispute that the decision in
the case of “Sumer Singh” (supra) attained finality after the
Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Rajasthan vide
(Downloaded on 18/07/2025 at 09:45:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28162-DB] (8 of 12) [SAW-779/2025]
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.14536 of 2021 was
dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. This is also recorded
in the order dated 17th October 2022, a copy of which is
tendered by the learned counsel of the respondent, that the
Department took a decision in its meeting held on 6th July
2022 as reflected in the communication dated 15 th July 2022
that it shall not seek review of the order passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned Special Leave
Petition.
11. In the aforesaid state of affairs, this Court finds that
the present Special Appeal is prima-facie bereft of merits. We
have taken this decision also for the reason that the writ
Court in the order dated 17th October 2022 held that
“Ramdev Mali” has the same status similar to “Sumer Singh”.
We would also observe that judicial discipline and proprietary
require that a judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench is accepted
as binding by another Bench of co equal strength and only
course open to the latter Bench is to refer the matter to the
Chief Justice for consideration of the matter by a Larger
Bench if the latter Bench records its disagreement with the
previous decisions but no such ground has been pleaded by
the appellants in this case nor we see any reason to disagree
with the decision in “Sumer Singh”.”
16. As far as the judgment passed by the Division Bench in
D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.292 of 2024 titled “Himmat Singh v.
State of Rajasthan & Ors.“, dated 19th February 2025, is
concerned, the same pertained to services rendered by the
petitioner therein under RIICO, which is an instrumentality of the
State Government and not the State Government itself. Needless
to emphasize, RIICO is only an instrumentality of the State
Government, and not a department thereof. Thus, the ratio of the
judgment in “Himmat Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.” is not
applicable to the case at hand and is clearly distinguishable.
17. The upshot of the above discussion is that the appeal filed by
the State Government is prima facie bereft of merit.
(Downloaded on 18/07/2025 at 09:45:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28162-DB] (9 of 12) [SAW-779/2025]
18. In the present case, the appeal was filed on 08 th September
2024, whereas the impugned order was passed on 29 th August
2023. Only grounds taken in the Application under section 5 is
that there were administrative lapses and delay in filing of appeal
is minor as also it has been stated that due to change of
Government as well as change of Counsels, some delay had
occasioned inadvertently.
19. The learned Additional Advocate General prays that the
appellant being The State of Rajasthan, some latitude should be
granted to the Government as some delay takes place in
administrative decisions.
20. The ground taken by the learned counsel for the appellant
with regard to certain latitude being granted to the Government is
heard to be rejected as the issue in this regard is no longer res
integra in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court
in “Postmaster General & Ors. v. Living Media India Limited &
Anr.” (2012) 3 SCC 563 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court while
dealing with issue of filing of appeal by the Government agencies
has specifically stated as under:-
“26. In spite of affording another opportunity to file better
affidavit by placing adequate material, neither the Department
nor the person-in-charge has filed any explanation for not
applying the certified copy within the prescribed period. The
other dates mentioned in the affidavit which we have already
extracted, clearly show that there was delay at every stage
and except mentioning the dates of receipt of the file and the
decision taken, there is no explanation as to why such delay
had occasioned. Though it was stated by the Department that
they delay was due to unavoidable circumstances and genuine
difficulties, the fact remains that from day one the
Department or the person/persons concerned have not(Downloaded on 18/07/2025 at 09:45:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28162-DB] (10 of 12) [SAW-779/2025]evinced diligence in prosecuting the matter to this Court by
taking appropriate steps.
27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were
well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the
prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way
of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim
that they have a separate period of limitation when the
Department was possessed with competent persons familiar
with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and
acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the
delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the
Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us.
28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of
condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or
deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession
has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the
view that in the facts and circumstances, the Departmentcannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim
on account of impersonal machinery and inherited
bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be
accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and
available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody,
including the Government.
29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the
government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that
unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for
the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to
accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for
several months/years due to considerable degree of
procedural red tape in the process. The government
departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they
perform their duties with diligence and commitment.
Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used
as an anticipated benefit for the government departments.
The law shelters everyone under the same light and should
not be swirled for the benefit of a few.”
21. Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case “Commissioner
of Public Instruction & Ors. v. Shamshuddin” 2021 SCC Online SC
3518 stated as under:-
(Downloaded on 18/07/2025 at 09:45:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28162-DB] (11 of 12) [SAW-779/2025]
“2. The aforesaid itself shows the casual manner in which
the petitioner has approached this Court without any cogent
or plausible ground for condonation of delay. In fact, other
than the lethargy and incompetence of the petitioner, there is
nothing which has been put on record. We have repeatedly
discouraged State Governments and public authorities in
adopting an approach that they can walk in to the Supreme
Court as and when they please ignoring the period of
limitation prescribed by the Statutes, as if the Limitation
statute does not apply to them. In this behalf, suffice to refer
to our judgments in the State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bheru Lal
[SLP [C] Diary No. 9217/2020 decided on 15.10.2020] and
The State of Odisha v. Sunanda Mahakuda [SLP [C] Diary No.
22605/2020 decided on 11.01.2021]. The leeway which was
given to the Government/public authorities on account of
innate inefficiencies was the result of certain orders of this
Court which came at a time when technology had not
advanced and thus, greater indulgence was shown. This
position is no more prevalent and the current legalposition has
been elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Office of the
Chief Post Master General. Living Media India Ltd., (2012) 3
SCC 563. Despite this, there seems to be a little change in the
approach of the Government and public authorities.”
22. Even recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of “Union of
India & Anr. v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy through his legal
representatives” 2024 SCC Online SC 489 has dealt with the issue
of limitation and again held that the Government cannot claim any
latitude and has to be treated like any other litigant and further
observed as under:-
“35. In a plethora of decisions of this Court, it has been said
that delay should not be excused as a matter of generosity.
Rendering substantial justice is not to cause prejudice to the
opposite party. The appellants have failed to prove that they
were reasonably diligent in prosecuting the matter and this
vital test for condoning the delay is not satisfied in this case.”
23. In the present case, the appellants have not been able to
prove that they were diligent in prosecuting the matter and no
(Downloaded on 18/07/2025 at 09:45:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28162-DB] (12 of 12) [SAW-779/2025]
sufficient cause whatsoever has been shown for condoning the
delay. Thus on the ground of the delay itself the appeal deserves
to be dismissed.
24. I.A. No.01/2024 is dismissed.
25. D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.779 of 2025 is, therefore,
dismissed.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J (SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR),J
138-devrajP/-
(Downloaded on 18/07/2025 at 09:45:31 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link