Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 1996
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, SANDEEP SHAH, JJ.
The State of Rajasthan – Appellant
Versus
Chander Shekhar son of Shri Ramesh Chandra – Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 538 of 2025
Decided on : 03-07-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. I.R. Choudhary, AAG Mr. Pawan Bharti, AAAG
For the Respondent:Mr. Khet Singh Rajpurohit, Advocate
Experience under transferred schemes is valid for bonus marks eligibility, and the state must provide justifiable reasons for delay in appeals.
Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 - Rule 273 - Appeal against order of Single Judge allowing petitioner's writ petition for countersigning experience certificate and granting bonus marks for work under an NRHM scheme - The court emphasized that experience under transferred schemes allows eligibility for bonus marks and referred to precedent cases. (Paras 1, 6, 18, 24)
(B) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Condonation of delay - Explanation for delay deemed inadequate due to lack of detailed reasons and administrative lapses - Government bodies treated as subject to same limitations without leniency. (Paras 3, 20, 23)
Facts of the case:
The respondent worked under the NRHM scheme and applied for the post of LDC seeking bonus marks based on experience. His application was denied by the State, asserting that work under NRHM did not qualify for marks under Panchayati Raj Rules.
Findings of Court:
Experience acquired under transferred NRHM schemes is valid for awarding bonus marks under the rules.
Issues: Whether experience under NRHM qualifies for bonus marks according to Rule 273 and whether the state's delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that transferred schemes must be recognized for bonus mark eligibility. The state's request for delay condonation was rejected due to lack of justification.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against positive writ decision. (Para 1) |
| 2. delay in appeal filing explained inadequately. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. arguments regarding the applicability of rule 273. (Para 4 , 8) |
| 4. experience under nrhm scheme relevance. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 5. previous decisions in related cases influence current case. (Para 9 , 11 , 15) |
| 6. rule 273's requirement for weightage explained. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 7. outcome of the appeal based on lack of merit. (Para 17 , 19) |
| 8. government's failure to prove diligence in delay justification. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 9. importance of diligence for condonation of delay. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 10. final dismissal of the appeal and application. (Para 24 , 25) |
Order :
SANDEEP SHAH, J.
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29th November 2022 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17316 of 2022 titled “Chander Shekhar v. State of Rajasthan”, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner and directed the respondent (present appellants) to countersign the experience certificate of the petitioner and to grant the bonus marks to the petitioner, pursuant to Rule 273 of the RAJASTHAN PANCHAYATI RAJ RULES , 1996 (hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1996 for brevity) for the work undertaken by him in the scheme under the Panchayat Raj Department.
I.A. No.01/2024:
2. An application under section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 630 days in filing the present Special Appeal (Writ).
3. A perusal of the contents of Para Nos.2 to 6 will reveal that no reasons, what to say sufficient reasons, have been specified in the application, nor have any details or relevant dates about the processing of the file for filing the appeal been given, and it has merely been stated that the delay was due to administrative decisions and that the delay is minor. We observe that the explanation offered by the appellants is not at all satisfactory.
4. However, we have glanced at the order passed by the writ Court, with a view to satisfy ourselves whether the appellants would suffer irreparable loss if the delay in filing the Special Appeal (Writ) is not condoned. We have glanced at the order passed by the writ Court also to find whether there is any merit in the present Special Appeal (Writ).
5. The respondent (writ petitioner) had filed the writ petition stating that he was working as a Computer Operator under the NRHM scheme and possessed the qualification of Senior Secondary from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, as well as a Master’s degree in Computer Science from Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak. It was stated that the petitioner, pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Department of Medical and Health, was appointed as Computer Operator-cum- Lower Division Clerk on a contractual basis at the Community Health Center, Gotan, District Nagaur, on 23rd September 2009. The petitioner had further stated that subsequently, an advertisement dated 14th February 2013 was issued by the Panchayati Raj Department inviting applications for appointment to the post of LDC, wherein bonus marks were awarded for each year of work experience as a contractual employee, up to a maximum of 30 marks for three years. It was the case of the petitioner that although he had applied pursuant to the said advertisement, he was not granted bonus marks based upon the experience certificate on the ground that he was working under the NRHM scheme and not under Panchayati Raj Department and also for the aforesaid reason his experience certificate was not countersigned.
6. The petitioner had asserted that by an order dated 02nd October 2010 (Annexure-5 of the writ petition), issued by the Medical and Health Department, all the schemes running under the NRHM or under the Department of Medical and Health, up-to the District level were handed over to the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department for effective operation and proper coordination. It was thus asserted that
