SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Raj) 1663

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Arun Bhansali, J.
Giresh Dindor – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12914/2021
Decided On : 04-04-2022

Advocates appeared:
Pawan Singh, Advocate, for the Appellant
Kunal Upadhyay on behalf of Sunil Beniwal, AAG, for the Respondents

The interpretation of statutory provisions for award of bonus marks is guided by the principle of ejusdem generis, where general words take their meaning from specific words preceding them.

Headnote:

Bonus Marks - Appointment Dispute - Rule 273 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 - [Rule 273]

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought appointment as a Lower Division Clerk ('LDC') against the category of TSP ST (Male) with all consequential benefits pursuant to Advertisement-2013. The petitioner's representation for bonus marks based on his experience as an Assistant Worker was rejected by the respondents.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's experience as a Class-IV employee did not entitle him to bonus marks as per Rule 273, which specified eligible posts for bonus marks. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the rejection of the petitioner's representation.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to bonus marks for his experience as a Class-IV employee under Rule 273.

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle of ejusdem generis to interpret the provision for award of bonus marks under Rule 273, concluding that the petitioner's experience did not qualify for bonus marks as it did not match the specified eligible posts.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the rejection of the petitioner's representation for bonus marks.

JUDGMENT

Arun Bhansali, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the letter dated 19.08.2021 (Annex. 22) and seeking a direction to the respondents to accord appointment to the petitioner on the post of Lower Division Clerk ('LDC') against the category of TSP ST (Male) with all consequential benefits pursuant to Advertisement-2013 and consider the candidature of the petitioner as per verification of his qualification of higher secondary mark-sheet.

2. It it, inter-alia, indicated in the petition that an advertisement for recruitment of LDC-2013 came to be issued by the respondents. The petitioner filled-up the application form in this regard. An experience certificate was issued to the petitioner indicating that the petitioner has worked from 01.05.2008 to 11.03.2013 under the scheme of MGNREGA in Panchayat Samiti-Sajjangarh on the post of 'Assistant Worker' on contract basis. The Zila Parishad, Banswara issued a list (Annex. 20) of the selected candidates on 11.12.2019, but name of the petitioner did not appear in the said list.

3. It is claimed that the petitioner made a representation dated 03.05.2021 (Annex. 21) to the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Banswara seeking appointment as per the cutoff, as he was qualified and entitled to bonus marks.

4. The representation came to be decided on 19.08.2021 (Annex. 22), wherein it was indicated that the experience gained by the petitioner as Assistant Worker was not eligible for bonus marks and as the petitioner has obtained marks less than the General and ST candidates, he is not in merit and as such rejected the representation.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions with reference to Notification dated 17.12.2012 (Annex. 5) indicating that Rule 273 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 ('Rules') came to be amended by the said notification, wherein the provision was made that those who were working on 'any post under any Scheme of the Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj', were entitled for bonus marks and as the experience gained by the petitioner falls in the said category, he is entitled for award of the bonus marks. Submissions were made that only because the petitioner had worked as Assistant Worker, which position is equivalent to that of Class-IV employee, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not entitled for award of the bonus marks in view of specific stipulation in this regard in the Rules and therefore, the action of the respondents in rejecting the representation of the petitioner deserves to be set aside and the respondents be directed to award bonus marks to the petitioner.

6. Reliance was placed on Ramniwas v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10519/2017 decided on 08.02.2018 and Pushkar Garg v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2622/2018 decided on 06.11.2019.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents made submissions that the petitioner has discharged the duties as a Class-IV employee and the post of Class-IV employee has not been mentioned in the Rules and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for award of bonus marks for his experience as a Class-IV employee and the writ petition deserves dismissal.

8. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

9. The relevant provision for award of bonus marks, as amended by notification dated 17.12.2012, reads 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 marks obtained in such qualifying academic examination as specified in the schedule I of chapter XII of these rules and such bonus marks as may be specified by the State Government having regard to the length of experience, more than one year, as Junior Technical Assistant (J.T.A.), Junior Engineer, Gram Rozgar Sahayak, Data Entry Operator, Computer Oper

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

          Please visit our Training & Support
          Center or Contact Us for assistance

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top