Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Rajnikant Mali vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:18465) on 15 April, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:18465]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7587/2025
Rajnikant Mali S/o Raghunath Mali, Aged About 45 Years, R/o
Near Uba Ganeshji Temple, Lal Bag Road, Nathdwara, District
Rajsamand (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj
(Panchayati Raj), Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. The Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj
Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Additional Commissioner-cum-Dy. Secretary (First),
Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department,
Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Rajsamand, District
Rajsamand.
5. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Khamnore, District
Rajsamand.
6. Abhishek Sharma S/o Shri Damodar Lal Sharma, Through
Panchayat Samiti Amet, District Rajsamand.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pawan Singh.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
15/04/2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The present writ petition has been filed with the following
prayers:-
“I). The action of the respondents while not
determining the seniority in the provisional seniority list
dated 10.03.2025 (Annexure-14) on the basis of date of
joining/date of confirmation of the LDCs and placing the(Downloaded on 17/04/2025 at 09:22:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18465] (2 of 9) [CW-7587/2025]petitioner much lower in the seniority list despite the
fact that the petitioner has joined much prior than the
aspirants who have joined/confirmed much after him,
may kindly be declared per se bad in the eye of law,
unjust, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative to Rule
285 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 and
Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India; and/
orII) The provisional seniority list dated 10.03.2025
(Annexure-14) may kindly be quashed and set aside and
the respondents may kindly be directed to prepare a
fresh seniority list while determining the seniority on the
basis of date of joining/date of confirmation; and/orIII) The respondents may kindly be directed to
determine the seniority of the petitioner as per his
entitlement i.e. date of joining/date of confirmation and
if the petitioner comes in merit, he be given promotion
on the post of UDC; and/orIV) The respondents may kindly be directed to consider
and decide the objection of the petitioner objectively.
V) The respondents may kindly be directed to include
the name of the petitioner in the final seniority list at his
proper place as per his entitlement and not lower than
the aspirants who have joined and confirmed much after
the petitioner.”
3. Briefly noted the facts in the present writ petition are that in
pursuance of the recruitment advertisement issued in the year
2013 by the Zila Parishad, the petitioner was appointed on the
post of Lower Division Clerk. After selection of the petitioner on
the post of LDC, a merit list was prepared by the respondent
department after completing document verification. The petitioner
joined the services on 01.07.2013 at the allotted place of posting.
While the petitioner was working on the post of LDC, a provisional
seniority list was prepared on 21.09.2022. The petitioner’s name
was placed at Serial No.60. On the provisional seniority list,
objections were invited. On the objections received by the
department, the seniority list prepared on the basis of merit was
changed and a seniority list was prepared on the basis of date of
(Downloaded on 17/04/2025 at 09:22:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18465] (3 of 9) [CW-7587/2025]
joining. The petitioner’s seniority list was reshuffled to Serial
No.61. The petitioner, in these circumstances, preferred a
representation, against which no action was taken. In the similar
situation, writ petitions were filed before this Court and the
controversy was decided by this Court in a bunch of writ petitions
led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13204/2024 (Goverdhan Kumar &
Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.). Vide order dated
23.09.2024, it was held that the seniority list is required to be
prepared as per merit keeping in mind the provisions of Rule 285
of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred
to as ‘Rules of 1996’).
4. For complying with the orders passed by this Court, the
respondents are now preparing the seniority list afresh keeping in
mind the merit position of the persons including the petitioner. The
provisional list on the basis of merit is prepared on 10.03.2025.
Hence, the present writ petition has been filed for quashing the
provisional seniority list prepared on the basis of merit position of
the LDCs and it is prayed that the seniority list may be prepared
on the basis of date of joining/ date of confirmation.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that
the seniority list should be prepared on the basis of date of
joining. He further submits that preparation of the seniority list on
the basis of merit position is contrary to Rule 285 of the Rules of
1996. He, therefore, prays that the provisional seniority list
prepared on 10.03.2025 may be quashed and the respondents
may be directed to prepare a fresh seniority list on the basis of
date of joining/date of confirmation.
(Downloaded on 17/04/2025 at 09:22:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18465] (4 of 9) [CW-7587/2025]
6. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and have
gone through the relevant record of the case. The question raised
in the present writ petition had already been discussed,
deliberated and decided in the case of Goverdhan Kumar (supra)
vide order dated 23.09.2024 in the following terms:-
“I have considered the submissions made at the bar
and also gone through the relevant rules.
The admitted position in the present case clearly
depicts that the petitioner was selected by the District
Establishment Committee and a merit list was prepared by
the District Establishment Committee on 25.06.2013
wherein the name of the petitioner was reflected at serial
No.163. In pursuance of the merit list prepared by the
District Establishment committee, she was given
appointment by the concerned Panchayat Samiti/Zila
Parishad. In pursuance of the appointment order, she
joined her duties on 01.07.2013. The petitioner rendered
her services to the utmost satisfaction of the respondents.
After completion of her probation period, she was
confirmed on the said post vide order dated 17.12.2015.
For consideration of promotion on the post of UDC (Senior
Assistants), the respondents prepared a provisional/final
seniority list. While preparing the seniority list of LDCs
(junior Assistants), the respondents have taken into
consideration her date of appointment/joining. For
preparation of seniority list, section 90 of the Rajasthan
Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and Rules, 259, 270, 274, 276
and Rule 285 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996
were taken into consideration. The relevant provisions of
Section 90 of the Act of 1994 and Rule 259, 270, 274, 276
and Rule 285 of the Rules of 1996 are reproduced as
under:-
“Section 90 : Constitution and Functions of the
District Establishment Committee:-
(1)…………..
(2) The District Establishment committee shall –
(a) make selection or the posts in different grades and
categories [except the posts specified in clauses (I),
(iii), (iv) and (v) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 89]
[Substituted by Notification No.F.2(2), dated 9.4.2016
(w.e.f.23.4.1999).] existing in the service in the
Panchayat Samiti and the Zila Parishad in the District in(Downloaded on 17/04/2025 at 09:22:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18465] (5 of 9) [CW-7587/2025]accordance with the rules made by the state
government in this behalf;
(b) regulate the mode of temporary appointment and
recommend the names of persons for extending such
appointments beyond six months;
(c) prepare lists of persons for promotion in the
prescribed manner; and
(d) advise the Panchayat Samitis of the district and Zila
Parishad all disciplinary matters affecting the officers
and other employees thereof other than those referred
to in Secs.79 and 82, which may arise under Section
91.”
Rule 259, Methods of Recruitment :-
259. Methods of Recruitment’s.-
(1) The posts of state service may be filled in by
transfer on deputation from appropriate service.
(6) Recruitment of posts encadred in Panchayat
Samiti and Zila Parishad Services as per Sub-Section (2)
of Section 89 shall be made district wise through District
Establishment Committee as per provisions of Secs. 80
and 90 of the Act.
Procedure for Direct Recruitment
Rule 270. Inviting of applications -On a requisition
for direct recruitment to the service having been made
by the Panchayat Samiti or the Zila Parishad to the
District Establishment Committee, applications shall be
invited by the Committee through open advertisement in
daily news paper having wide circulation.
Rule 274 Preparation of a merit list by the
Committee.
(1) The committee shall prepare a merit list of
candidates considered suitable for appointment to [each
grade or category of posts except the post specified in
clause (iii) of sub-section (2) of Section 89 of the Act in
the district] and shall on receipt of requisition from the
Panchayat Samitis or Zila Parishads allot candidates from
the list in the order in which their names occur in the list:
Provided that: –
(i) the number of candidates in the merit list
prepared by the Committee shall not exceed one and
a half time the number of vacancies actually available
at the time such merit list is prepared; and(Downloaded on 17/04/2025 at 09:22:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18465] (6 of 9) [CW-7587/2025]
(ii) the merit list of candidates so prepared shall
remain valid for a period of one year in general and
up to end of academic session for teachers. After
expiry of such period, it will be deemed to have
lapsed.
(2) The Panchayat Samitis or Zila Parishads shall
take into consideration the requirement of Rule 261
while sending their requisitions to the Committee.
Rule 276. Appointment by Panchayat Samiti or
Zila Parishad.- The Panchayat Samiti or Zila
Parishad shall appoint the candidates allotted by the
Committee in the order in which their names are
forwarded by the Committee.
Rule 280. Allotment and Appointment:- (1) On
receipt of requisition from the Panchayat Samitis or
Zila Parishad, the committee shall allot persons from
the list, in the same order in which their names occur
in the list.
(2) The Panchayat Samitis or Zila Parishad shall,
on receipt of the allotment from the Commitee,
appoint the persons so allotted to the posts for which
they are selected by the Committee.
Rule 285. Seniority. – Seniority in lowest grade or
category of the service shall be determined by the
date of confirmation and in other higher posts filled
by promotion shall be determined from the date of
regular selection :
Provided :-
(i) that if two or more persons are appointed to
posts in the same grade or category under the same
order or orders of the same date, their seniority shall
be in the same order in which their names appear in
the list prepared by the Committee,
(ii) that the seniority of persons appointed by
transfer shall be fixed below the persons
substantively appointed and he will be the junior
most though his pay will be protected as personal
pay.
(iii) that persons appointed by promotion in a
particular year shall be senior to persons appointed
by direct recruitment”.
Perusal of above quoted Rules clearly show that the
District Establishment Committee is entrusted with the
(Downloaded on 17/04/2025 at 09:22:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18465] (7 of 9) [CW-7587/2025]
selection of LDCs for appointment in the Panchayat
Samities/Zila Parishads. In the present case, admittedly,
the recruitment was made in pursuance of Rule 259 of the
Rules of 1996 by the District Establishment Committee
after inviting the applications from the candidates under
Rule 270 of the Rules of 1996. The Selection Committee
i.e. the District Establishment Committee prepared a merit
list of the candidates who were considered suitable for
appointment on the post and thereafter, the names of the
candidates were forwarded to the respective Panchayat
Samities/Zila Parishads in furtherance of the requisitions
received from them in the order of merit list prepared by
the respondents. Further, the candidates whose names
were forwarded by the District Establishment committee
were given appointments by the concerned Panchayat
Samities/Zila Parishads in view of their names forwarded
by the Committee under Rule 276 of the Rules of 1996.
The process of allotment and appointment of the
candidates was done by the Committee as per Rule 280 of
the Rules of 1996 in the order in which the names of the
candidates occurred in the merit/selection list.
The harmonious reading of the above referred
Section and Rules clearly shows that the appointing
authority of the LDCs (Junior Assistant) in the respondent
Department is District Establishment Committee and after
the District Establishment committee selects the
candidates on the post of LDCs, the seniority list is
prepared by it in order of merit, thereafter, the candidates
are sent to the different Panchayat Samities and Zila
Parishads on the basis of the recommendations received.
The Legislature has made the provision in such a fashion
that the selections are made in a most transparent
manner. The criteria adopted by the Legislature for
selection and appointment of the LDCs by the different
Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads has been devised
with a pious intention to minimize and to avoid different
yardsticks in the selection process.
Looked at from another angle, if the date of
appointment/joining of a candidate is taken into
consideration for preparation of the seniority list, it may
lead to discrepancies and chaotic/haphazard situation. For
example, if a person who stood higher in the select
list/merit list and was directed to join at a particular
Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad, but for reasons beyond
his/her control, he/she is unable to join on the given date
and if a person lower in merit joins the place of posting
earlier to that person, he will be given seniority above the
meritorious person. For no fault of a senior person, he will
(Downloaded on 17/04/2025 at 09:22:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18465] (8 of 9) [CW-7587/2025]
loose his seniority viz-a-viz a junior person who has joined
earlier despite being lower in merit. Such course of action
was never intended by the legislature, therefore, the
scheme of things as devised by the legislature, clearly
shows that the seniority of LDC (Junior Assistant) should
be assigned as per the merit list prepared by the District
Establishment Committee.
In the considered opinion of this court, in order to
maintain transparency and smooth functioning in the
Panchayati Raj Department, the procedure of preparing
the seniority list on the basis of merit has been devised.
This court is not inclined to take a different view
from the view which has been taken by this court in the
case of Bimla (supra). In the case of Bimla (supra), in
similar set of facts, it was held that while preparing the
seniority list of LDCs for promotion to the post of UDC
(Senior Assistant), the respondents are required to adhere
to Rule 285 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996
and take into consideration merit position of a candidate
while preparing the seniority list.
The operative portion of the judgment rendered by
this court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.472/2023
Bimla V/s State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on
21.08.2024 is quoted as under:-
“8. Since the petitioner was appointed on the post
of LDC (Junior Assistant) on 26.06.2013 and he
joined the post of LDC on 27.06.2013, therefore, the
name of the petitioner should be reflected in the
seniority list as per the merit list prepared by the
respondents while giving appointment to the
petitioner along with other candidates.
9. The basis for preparing the seniority list of the
LDCs should be the merit position of a candidate
reflected in the appointment order which should be
taken into consideration while preparing the seniority
list of the candidates (LDCs). Since learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that the date of joining of
the petitioner has been taken into consideration while
preparing the seniority list, therefore, the
respondents are directed to re-examine the matter
and if the date of joining has been taken into
consideration while preparing the seniority list of the
LDCs, then the same is required to be corrected by
taking into consideration the merit position of the
petitioner in the appointment order and if any person,
who is junior to the petitioner in the merit as
reflected in the appointment order has been given
promotion, the case of the petitioner should be
considered viz-a-viz that person.
10. In view of the discussion made above, the
present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to
the respondents to reconsider the case of the
petitioner in light of the Rule 285 of the Rules of(Downloaded on 17/04/2025 at 09:22:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18465] (9 of 9) [CW-7587/2025]1996 taking into account the merit position of the
petitioner in the appointment order while preparing
the seniority list of LDC (Junior Assistant) for
promotion to the post of UDC (Senior Assistant),
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt
of certified copy of this order.”
In view of the discussion made above, the present
writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the
respondents to re-frame the seniority list of the petitioner
for promotion to the post of UDC (Senior Assistant) taking
into consideration her position in the merit list prepared by
the District Establishment Committee at the time of her
appointment and not her date of joining/appointment, in
accordance with law.”
7. Since, this Court has already decided the controversy in the
case of Goverdhan Kumar (supra) holding that the seniority list is
required to be prepared as per merit keeping in mind the
provisions of Rule 285 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules,
1996, therefore, there is no reason for this Court to take a
different view than the view taken in the case of Goverdhan
Kumar (supra). Thus, this Court does not find any merit in the
present writ petition. The writ petition, is therefore, dismissed.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
20-Shahenshah/-
(Downloaded on 17/04/2025 at 09:22:53 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link