CWP-13505/13 & cognate cases
(1)
In The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench, Jaipur O R D E R D.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.13505, 13135, 13329, 13331, 13334, 13346, 13347, 13359, 13385, 13399, 13428, 13466, 13467, 13500, 13502, 13508, 13511, 13515, 13516, 13601, 13603, 13703, 14331, 14332, 14333, 14536, 14611, 14636, 14640, 14641, 14673, 14675, 14833, 14861, 14862, 14931, 14934, 14957, 14994, 14996, 14999, 15000, 15005, 15246, 15991, 16618, 18286, 18618, 13025, 13134, 13231, 13254, 13330, 13358, 13383, 13387, 13429, 13468, 13501, 13506, 13510, 13512, 13518, 14334, 14721, 14725, 14891, 15406, 15494, 15631, 15990, 16004, 16557, 18364 of 2013 Date : 14/08/2015 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal Sarva Shri/Smt./Ms. (For Petitioners):Sunil Garg, Lokesh Sharma, Laxmi Kant, R.K. Gautam, Vijay Pathak, Smt. Shashi Choudhary, Kuldeep Aswal, Sunil Kumar Swami, Ram Pratap Saini, Manish Sharma, Vivek Choudhary, Dharmendra Sharma, Ashok Yadav, Tanveer Ahmed, Sandeep Saxena, Hari Krishan Sharma, Sunil Kumar Singodiya, Sonia Shandilya, Sandeep Pathak, Kartar Singh Fauzdar, Nidhi Khandelwal, Dheeraj, Mahendra Shah, Vigyan Shah, Rajveer Sharma, Deepak Khandelwal, Atul Kumar Jain, Hemant Sharma, R.B. Sharma ((Ghantola), Raj Kumar Goyal, Mahendra Singh Gurjar, Naveen Dhuwan, Hari Kishan Saini, Pradeep Lata Mathur, Manoj Singh Raghav, Kailash Choudhary, Krishan Sharma, Sunil Kumar Jain, Yunus Khan, Ravi Meena, Mr. S.K. Gupta Additional Adv. Gen. for State. Mr. Shyam Lal Gurjar, Addl. Director, (Admn.), Medical & Health Department. *************
In the present batch of petitions we find that the controversy is in three folds & being decided as under :(i)
In first batch of petitions, Advertisement
No.ई-18/एम/(स ध
भर
)/2013/1311
dt.10.07.2013 is in question. कम स
पद न म 1
समन
क
2
कम टर
पद (स स
) अनद!शक
क सख 56 39
CWP-13505/13 & cognate cases
(2) कम स
पद न म
पद
क सख
3
समन क (प स प एनड ट
4
समन
क
(प%ग म
5
समन
क
(आई०ई०स
6
अनभ*!ख
7
*!ख
)
सह क
34 )
662
०)
34
क* ननक* 4309
सह क
2412
ब*/क
आश
8
249 प ०एच०स प 0 !कक
9
Sh.
S.K.
०
आश 1612
Gupta
Additional
Advocate
General
appearing on behalf of the State Government after seeking instructions from his officer Sh. Shyam Lal Gurjar, Addl. Director, (Admn.), Medical & Health Department, submits that the Government has taken a decision not to continue with the selection process initiated with respect to nine posts pursuant to the advertisement
dt.10.07.2013.
In
view
of
the
statement made by AAG, the batch of petitions where the controversy has been raised in respect of such nine
different
posts
in
reference
to
the
advertisement dt.10.07.2013 referred to supra, has become infructuous. However, it is made clear that if
any
advertisement
is
issued
in
future
the
candidate if finds aggrieved will be at liberty to avail remedy which the law permits.
(ii)
There is another batch of petitions where
the Advertisement No.ई-33/*3० ०ट!
/(स ध
2013/495 dt.10.07.2013 is in question.
भर
)/
CWP-13505/13 & cognate cases
(3) कम स
पद न म
पद
1
सह क
र! नड %ग फर
2
*3ब
3
प %गश *
क 1593
ट!क नश न
1354 सह क
543
Another controversy raised is in respect of the selection
process
held
for
three
posts
initiated
pursuant to the advertisement (supra). By & large the
dispute
is
in
respect
of
appointment
made
through placement agency and the grievance of the petitioners is that such of the candidates who are holding
similar
posts
appointed
through
placement
agency are also entitled to the same treatment & further brought to our notice that the self same controversy came to be examined & decided by the Coordinate Bench
of
this Court
in
Mitendra Singh
Rathore & 121 Ors. Vs. State of Raj., & Ors, 2013(4) WLC
(Raj.)
523,
operative
part
whereof
being
relevant for the present purpose reads ad infra :“18. The distinction sought to be made with the persons employed through the placement agencies is that those were under the control of the placement agencies and, as such, necessary details pertaining to their experience were with the placement agencies only. Much emphasis is given by the respondents that the State Government or the Panchayati Raj Institutions, as the case may be, entered into agreement with the placement agencies leaving it open for the placement agencies to accomplish the task given through the persons employed by that agency without definite identification of the person concern by the Panchayati Raj Institution. The
CWP-13505/13 & cognate cases
(4)
stand taken by the respondents is not at all acceptable at its face. It is not in dispute that the placement agencies are nothing but contractor to supply labour force. The roll of the labour force supplied through contractor is available with the principal employer i.e. the State Government and different Panchayati Raj Institutions who availed services placement
of
such persons agencies. The
through State
Government, as such, is having necessary details with regard to
all the
work done by the persons employed through the placement agencies. On having these details, measurement of the experience acquired by the persons rendering service in MGNREGA or under different schemes relating to Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj can very well be assessed by the respondents. In any case, this procedural problem can not be a reason valid to make an unreasonable classification. At this stage it is also pertinent to note that the Panchayati Raj Institutions have already issued experience certificates to the persons employed through placement agencies. 20.
As
a
consequent
to
the
declaration
above the proviso second to Rule 273 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 stands as under:-
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
CWP-13505/13 & cognate cases
(5)
or
its
equivalent
examination
and
such
marks as may be specified by the State Government having regard to the length of experience exceeding on 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, Coordinator IEC, Coordinator Training, Coordinator Supervision in MGNREGA or in any other scheme of the Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj in the State. In light of the proviso second respondents are required to extend weightage against persons employed
the the
the experience to the through the placement
agencies also. No order as to costs.” We too find justification that no distinction could
have
been
made
on
the
basis
of
mode
of
appointment and such of the candidates/petitioners who are appointed through placement agency in light of what has been observed by the Coordinate Bench, referred
to
consideration
supra,
are
also
under
the
Scheme
entitled of
for
Rules
their
for
the
purpose of grant of bonus marks provided they are holding similar posts and it is always open for the department to
consider looking to
nature
of
post
by
the
held by the incumbent petitioner. (iii)
The
third
controversy
raised
petitioners in the other batch of writ petitions is that
initially when
the
advertisement came
to
be
issued by the respondents, such of the incumbents
CWP-13505/13 & cognate cases
(6)
who were working in Aids Control Society & Revised National Tuberculosis Control Programme (RNTCP) were not included under the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate has
now
Service
been
exercise of
made
the
Rules,1965. However, by
the
State
amendment
Government
power conferred under
in
proviso
to
Article 309 of the Constitution vide notification dt.30.08.2013 which reads as under :“Amendment of rule 1: In rule 19 of the said rule :(i) in first expression Bhandar”,
proviso
“or the
for
the
Sahakari expression
existing Upbhokta “Sahakari
Upbhokta Bhandar, Revised Tuberculosis Control Program
National (RNTCP),
Jhalawar Hospital and Medical College Society, Integrated Disease Surveillance Project or State Institute for Health and Family Welfare” shall be substituted. (ii) in second proviso, for the existing expression “and Medical Care Relief Society” the expression “Medical Care Relief Society, Chief Minister BPL Jeevan Raksha Kosh, AIDS Control Society, Revised National Tuberculosis Control Programme (RNTCP), Jhalawar Hospital and Medical Disease
College Society, Integrated Surveillance Project or State
Institute for Health and Family Welfare” shall be substituted.” Their grievance is that such of them who were working in the society which has been added pursuant to the notification dt.30.08.2013 (supra) has now taken
care
of
by
the
Government
entitled for the same benefit.
they
too
are
CWP-13505/13 & cognate cases
(7)
We
do
find
petitioners societies
justification
working
referred
in to
the are
that
the
various
entitled
candidates
govt. for
the
owned same
benefit for their consideration taking note of the notification
dt.30.08.2013
but
we
would
like
to
observe that it will be subject to nature of post held
by
the
incumbent
to
be
examined
by
the
appointing/competent authority. Consequently, the batch of writ petitions with the aforesaid directions stands disposed of. Let the order be complied with by the State Government in rem even for such of the candidates who have not approached
this
Court
mutatis
mutandis
alike
petitioners and there is no need to entertain any further petitions.
(Anupinder Singh Grewal), J.
VS/ Certificate - All corrections have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed/Vijay Singh Shekhawat/PAJW
(Ajay Rastogi),J.
