Back
2013 Supreme(Raj) 278
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
HON'BLE GOVIND MATHUR, J. HON'BLE VIJAY BISHNOI, J.
Archana
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4144 of 2013;
D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 630 of 2013
IN
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4144 of 2013;
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9780 of 2013;
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10236 of 2013;
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5583/2013, decided on 25.09.2013
G.S.Bafna, Advocate General assisted by Sarvesh Jain; and G.R. Punia, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mahendra Choudhary. Dr. P.S. Bhati and Dr. Nupur Bhati, for Petitioners in SBCWP No.4144/2013;
Ashok Chhangani, M.S. Godara and R.S. Choudhary, for Petitioners in SBCWP Nos.9780, 10236 and 5583 of 2013
Headnote:(a) Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, Rule 273 — Dispensing with holding of written test while making recruitment to the post of L.D.C. — Legality — Held — As per Rule 272 and 273 holding of written test is not a condition precedent for making direct recruitment — Bestow broad discretion to the committee to hold written test, hence not mandatory. (Para 27)
¼d½ jktLFkku iapk;rh jkt fu;e] 1996] fu;e 273 & dfu"B fyfid ds inksa dh HkrhZ djrs le; fyf[kr ijh{kk vk;ksftr djus dh okaNuh;rk dks vfHkeqfDr iznku djuk & fof/k ekU;rk & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & fu;e 272 o 273 ds vuqlkj fyf[kr ijh{kk vk;ksftr djuk lh/kh HkrhZ djus ds fy, dksbZ iwoZ 'krZ ugha gS & fyf[kr ijh{kk vk;ksftr djus gsrq ;s desVh dks foLr`r foosdkf/kdkj iznku djrs gS bl izdkj vkKkid ugha gSA ¼in la[;k 27½
(b) Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, Rule 266; Constitution of India, Art. 14, 16 — Giving weightage in the form of bonus marks without making amendment in Rule 266 — Whether it violates Art. 14 and 16? — Held — No, it is neither irrational nor it makes any classification without having intelligible differentia — It is no way offends the eligibility prescribed u/R. 266 as it prescribes minimum eligibility but not the criteria for determining merit, which as a matter of fact is given under proviso to Rule 273. (Paras 31, 33, 35 to 38)
¼[k½ jktLFkku iapk;rh jkt fu;e 1996] fu;e 266( Hkkjr dk lafo/kku] vuqPNsn 14] 16 & fu;e 266 esa la'kks/ku fd;s fcuk cksul vadksa ds :i esa otu nsuk & D;k ;g vuqPNsn 14 o 16 dk mYya?ku djrk gS\ & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & ugha] ;g u rks vrdZ laxr gS vkSj u gh ;g fcuk lqxzká vUrj okyk dksbZ oxhZdj.k djrk gS & ;g fdlh Hkh rjg ls fu;e 266 ds rgr fu/kkZfjr vgZrk dk mYya?ku djrk D;ksafd ;g U;wure vgZark fu/kkZfjr djrk gS] u fd ofj;rk fu/kkZfjr djus gsrq ekun.M] tks ;FkkFkZ esa fu;e 273 ds ijUrqd ds rgr fn;k tkrk gSA ¼in la- 31] 33] 35 ls 38½
(c) Rajasthan Rural Development and Panchayati Raj State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1998, Rule 15 and 23 — Competence of State Govt. to give complete good bye to Rule 15 and 23 and grant bonus marks for the services rendered by employees as per proviso added vide notification dated 6.3.2013 — Held — In view of amendment introduced by adding proviso to Rule 23, in the same terms of proviso to Rule 273 of Rules of 1996, State Govt. is competent to grant bonus marks without making amendment in the qualification laid down in Schedule appended to Rules of 1998. (Paras 31, 33, 35 to 40)
¼x½ jktLFkku xzkeh.k fodkl ,oa iapk;rh jkt jkT; ,oa v/khuLFk lsok fu;e] 1998] fu;e 15 o 23 & fu;e 15 o 23 dks iw.kZ:i ls vyfonk djus rFkk vf/klwpuk fnukad 6-3-2013 ds }kjk tksM+s x;s ijUrqd ds vuqlkj deZpkfj;ksa }kjk dh xbZ lsokvksa ds fy, cksul vad iznku djus dh jkT; ljdkj dh l{kerk & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & fu;e 23 dk ijUrqd tksM+ dj ykxw fd;s x;s la'kks/ku dh n`f"V ls] 1996 ds fu;eksa ds fu;e 273 ds mUgha fucU/kuksa esa 1998 ds fu;eksa ds lkFk layXu vuqlwph esa vf/kdfFkr ;ksX;rk esa la'kks/ku fd;s fcuk cksul vad iznku djus esa jkT; ljdkj l{ke gSA
¼in la-31] 33 35 ls 40½
(d) Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, Rule 273; Rules of 1998, Rule 23 — Giving weightage to experienced hands — Second — Legality and validity of proviso to Rule 273 added vide notification dated 29.1.2013 and substitution of existing proviso to Rule 23 in view of law laid down by Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case (2006) 4 SCC 1 — Held — Providing weightage to experienced persons under relevant provisions, employed by a fair process of selection as prescribed in the scheme concerned, does not frustrate or violate the law laid down by Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case. (Paras 49, 50)
¼?k½ jktLFkku iapk;rh jkt fu;e] 1996] fu;e 273( 1998 ds fu;e fu;e 23 & vuqHkoh O;fä;ksa dks out nks & Åek nsoh ds ekeys esa loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk vf/kdfFkr fof/k ¼2006½ 4 ,llhlh 1½ dh nqf"V ls vf/klwpuk fnukad 29-12-2013 }kjk fu;e 273 esa tksM+s x;s f}rh; ijUrqd vkSj fu;e 23 ds fo|eku ijUrqd ds izfrLFkkiu dh fof/kekU;rk rFkk oS/krk &vfHkfu/kkZfjr & mu vuqHkoh yksxksa dks lqlaxr izko/kkuksa ds rgr otu nsuk] tks lEcfU/kr Ldhe esa ;Fkk fu/kkZfjr mfpr p;u izfØ;k ds tfj;s fu;qä fd;s x;s gS] Åek nsoh ds ekeys esa loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk vf/kdfFkr fof/k dk mYya?ku ugha djrkA
¼in la- 49 o 50½
(e) Constitution of India, Art. 14, 16 and 21 — Providing 30 marks for experience acquired by candidates in different projects — Constitutional validity — Held — Grant of bonus marks to the extent of 30 marks is unjust, arbitrary and unfair — Declared illegal and quashed — State Govt. may grant weightage in the form of bonus marks against the service experience within the cap of 15 marks. (Paras 60-63)
Answered the reference accordingly.
¼M+½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku] vuqPNsn 14] 16 o 21 & fofHkUu ifj;kstukvksa ds vH;fFkZ;ksa }kjk vftZr vuqHko ds fy, 30 vad iznku djuk & laoS/kkfud fof/k ekU;rk & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & 30 vadks dh lhek rd cksul vad nsuk vuqfpr] euekuk ,oa vkSfpR; fofgu gS & voS/k ,oa vfHk[kf.Mr ?kksf"kr fd;k & jkT; ljdkj 15 vadksa dh lhek rd lsok vuqHko ds cnys cksul vad ds :i esa out ns ldrh gSA ¼in la- 60 ls 63½
jsQjsal dk rn~uqlkj mÙkj fn;kA
Hon'ble MATHUR, J.—By 73rd amendment of the Constitution of India, a constitutional status was conferred on Panchayati Raj Institutions as the third stratum of governance. The amendment aforesaid was a landmark step to satisfy directives of the State Policy enshrined under the Constitution. With an object to bring a law relating to Panchayati Raj Institution in conformity with the constitutional status granted to such institutions, the Rajasthan State Legislature enacted Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1994’). The Act of 1994 is a complete code of governance through Panchayati Raj Institutions in rural area of the State.
2. Section 78 to Section 84 of the Act of 1994 deals with appointment and deputation of officers and staff, while Section 89 deals with the formation of service for the Panchayati Raj Institutions in the name of “Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Service”. Section 90 deals with the constitution and functions of District Establishment Committee and Section 91 pertains to discipline among the members of the Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad service.
3. Section 102 of the Act of 1994 empowers the State Government to make Rules to carry out objects and the purposes of the Act. Exercising this power, the State of Rajasthan framed “The Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996” (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 1996’). Chapter XII of the Rules of 1996 relates to the recruitment of staff for the Panchayati Raj Institutions and to regulate other service conditions for the employees.
4. A complete procedure required to be adhered while making direct recruitment to the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Service is given in Rules 270 to 277. As per Rule 270, the District Establishment Committee on receiving requisitions for direct recruitment by the Panchayat Samiti or the Zila Parishad, as the case may be, shall invite applications through open advertisement in daily newspaper having wide circulation. The application as per Rule 271 is required to be made in a format prescribed by the District Establishment Committee. After scrutiny of the applications, the District Establishment Committee is required to conduct written test for all categories of service except for Class-IV service and for the post of Drivers. The written test aforesaid is to be conducted as per the procedure given in Rule 273 of the Rules of 1996. At the time of introduction of the Rules, the Rule 273 was in the following terms :-
“Rule 273. Written test.- The Committee may hold a written test for all categories of service except drivers and class IV. (The examination shall be conducted as per directions of the State Govt. The syllabus for competitive examination for direct recruitment to the post of (School teachers class 1 to 5 shall be as specified in Schedule II and Teachers classes 6 to 8 shall be specified in schedule III.) 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.”
5. A second proviso was added to Rule 273 under a notification dated 11.5.2011 and that reads as under :-
“Provided further that for the recruitment of Teachers Classes 1 to V and VI to VIII, the District Establishment Committee shall prepare merit list on the basis of marks obtained in written test and adding 20% of marks obtained in Teacher Eligibility Test.”
6. An amendment was further made in Rule 273 aforesaid by introducing a new proviso vide the Government of Rajasthan notification dated 17.12.2012, however, the same was re-amended by the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Rules, 2013 notified under a notification dated 29.1.2013 and the existing second proviso reads as under :-
“Provided also that in case of appointment to the post of Lower D
