Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Krishna Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:21520) on 5 May, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:21520]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7876/2025
Krishna Sharma D/o Dashrath Lal Sharma, Aged About 36 Years,
R/o Village And Post Kotra, Tehsil Kotra, District Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati
Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Udaipur, District
Udaipur.
4. Vikash Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Kotra, District Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramesh Kumar Prajapat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav, Dy.G.C.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
05/05/2025
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
is entitled to notional benefits in terms of the ratio laid down in
the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
Lalita Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.12857/2021 (decided on 21.03.2022).
2. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was also
afforded appointment in the year 2018 in terms of the new
guidelines as issued after circular dated 26.09.2018 having been
issued. Therefore, the petitioner is also on the same footing as
Lalita‘s case (supra).
(Downloaded on 07/05/2025 at 09:32:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:21520] (2 of 3) [CW-7876/2025]
3. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to
refute the aforesaid submission.
4. In Lalita‘s case (supra), it was observed and held as under:
“The qualification as indicated in the advertisement
Annex.2, which is subject matter of the present petition
pertains to the qualification pertaining to the computer
knowledge.
Based on the indication made in the advertisement,
initially the candidature of the petitioner was rejected,
however, the respondents by circular dated 11.07.2018
(Annex.5) held that those candidates having Computer
Science / Computer Application as additional subject in
Senior Secondary would also be eligible. Subsequently,
another circular dated 26.09.2018 came to be issued
based on order passed in the case of Roopa Ram Meghwal
& Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan: S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.10050/2018, decided on 25.07.2018 holding that
qualification of Computer Application obtained in
Graduation / B.Ed. would be valid qualification.
Based on which, the petitioner was accorded
appointment, holding him eligible pursuant to the
requirement of the advertisement of the year 2013.
The determination made by the Authority by
rejecting the representation of the petitioner by holding
that as in the year2013, the candidature of the petitioner
was rejected and the same subsequently on account of
order of the Court and departmental circulars, she was
accorded appointment, on that count, she was not eligible,
cannot be sustained, inasmuch as, by the circulars,
respondents have simply made those holding the
qualification, as eligible.
It is not a case, where a fresh eligibility has been
indicated for the purpose of candidates like petitioner to
become qualified. Admittedly, the petitioner was holding
the qualification prior to the year 2013, as the document
filed by the petitioner indicates the qualification having
been obtained in the year 2011 as such, the denial of
notional benefits to the petitioner on the said count cannot
be sustained.
Besides the above, once the other Zila Parishad has
accorded the notional benefits to similarly situated
candidates, as is reflected from the documents filed by the
petitioner as Annex.13,there is no valid reason for the
respondents to deny the same to the petitioner.
(Downloaded on 07/05/2025 at 09:32:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:21520] (3 of 3) [CW-7876/2025]
Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner
is allowed. The order dated 12.07.2021 (Annex.12) is
quashed and set aside.
The respondents are directed to accord notional
benefits to the petitioner on the post of LDC, as has been
accorded to similarly situated candidates vide Annex.13.”
5. In view of the aforesaid ratio, the present writ petition is
disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a
representation to the competent authority within a period of
fifteen days from now raising her grievance. The representation be
decided within a period of six weeks thereafter in accordance with
law and keeping in view the observations made in the case of
Lalita (supra).
6. The order has been passed based on the submissions made
in the petition and by learned counsel for the petitioner before this
Court. The respondents would be free to examine the veracity of
the submissions made in the petition and only in case, the
averments made therein are found to be correct, appropriate
orders would be passed in favour of the petitioner.
7. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
291-Devanshi/-
(Downloaded on 07/05/2025 at 09:32:10 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link