The court ruled that amendments to the qualification rules for LDCs eliminate the requirement for a type test for compassionate appointees who have acquired necessary computer proficiency.

ORDER :

(DINESH MEHTA, J.)

1. The issue involved in the present case is, as to whether the petitioner who was given compassionate appointment on the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1996) and/or under Rule 277 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996) is required to clear type test for the purpose of conferment of additional benefits, such as annual grade increments, promotions, etc.

2. Mr. Dutt, learned counsel for the petitioner raised a grievance that in spite of the fact that the petitioner has completed more than 13 years of his service, the respondents have denied him the benefits of annual grade increments on the pretext that he has not cleared the type test.

3. Learned counsel submitted that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court rendered in a bunch of writ petitions, lead case being Mohhamad Umer Rangrej Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. ( S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10333/2017 ) decided on 04.04.2019. He also relied upon the judgment dated 06.02.2020 passed by this Court in a bunch of writ petitions, lead case being Vikram Singh Rao Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. ( S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17204/2019 ).

4. Mr. Vaishnav, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- State on the other hand argued that while deciding the case of Mohhamad Umer Rangrej (supra), the amendments made in Rule 9 of the Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1996 on 02.01.2017 were not brought to the notice of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and therefore, the judgment of Mohhamad Umer Ranrej (supra) requires reconsideration.

5. While inviting Court’s attention towards clause (ii) of Rule 9 of the Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1996, learned counsel argued that in face of clause(ii) of the Rule 9 (ibid), which postulates that annual grade increments shall not be allowed until a candidate acquires requisite qualification, the petitioner cannot claim the annual grade incriments.

6. Learned counsel also relied upon Circulars dated 21.09.2010, 28.05.2018 and 20.06.2018, in order to support the State’s stance that since the petitioner has not cleared the type test, he is not entitled to be confirmed and/or for further benefits such as annual grade increments etc.

7. Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav, learned counsel for the respondent – State relied upon the judgment dated 04.12.2014 rendered in the case of Nitin Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. ( S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2394/2014 ) so also the judgment in the case of Bharat Bhushan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. ( S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17889/2015 , decided on 09.02.2016).

8. Mr. Dutt contended that the basic Rules governing Ministerial Posts are, the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 1999’) and submitted that they are applicable to all the departments with or without any specific amendment given in the relevant Service Rules dealing with the manner of recruitment, qualification and other incidental issues relating to ministerial posts mentioned in the schedule.

9. Learned counsel submitted that the Rules of 1999 came to be amended by the State Government vide notification dated 05.07.2010 in the manner that in place of ‘type test’, a candidate was required to have ‘computer proficiency’ as mentioned in the Column No.5 of Schedule-I. And soon after the Rules of 1999 were amended, the Department of Personnel issued a circular dated 19.08.2010 and provided that the candidate to be appointed on the post of LDC shall have to clear type test on computer.

10. Ho