Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 2007
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, SANDEEP SHAH, JJ.
State of Rajasthan, through the Secretary to the Government – Appellant
Versus
Kailash Chandar Lohar son of Shri Bheru Lal Lohar – Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 779 of 2025
Decided on : 01-07-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. I.R. Choudhary, AAG with Mr. Kuldeep Singh, Advocate
State entities must substantiate claims for condonation of delay; administrative delays do not justify absence of diligence in legal proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 - Section 273 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Condonation of delay - Delay in filing special appeal by State of Rajasthan of 316 days not justified due to lack of sufficient explanation; status of NRHM scheme transferred to Panchayati Raj Department entitles petitioners to bonus marks based on work experience. (Paras 2, 3, 9, 12, 18, 20, 21, 24)
(B) Limitation - The State cannot invoke leniency in matters of limitation without providing valid reasoning, must demonstrate diligence in prosecution. (Paras 20, 24)
Facts of the case:
The respondent, a contractual employee under the NRHM scheme, sought bonus marks for experience in an application for the post of LDC following a departmental advertisement; the appeal was against the Single Judge's ruling in favor of the respondent regarding the bonus marks.
Findings of Court:
The appeal lacks merit and the earlier ruling that serviced rendered under the NRHM are recognized under Panchayati Raj has properly been upheld.
Issues: Whether the petitioner's work under the NRHM scheme qualifies for bonus marks under the relevant rules and the sufficiency of the reasons given for delaying the special appeal by the State.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that administrative delays do not excuse the State from strict adherence to timelines and emphasized that there is no special privilege granted to the State in matters of limitation.
Result: Special Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. entitlement to bonus marks clarified (Para 1 , 5 , 6 , 12) |
| 2. application for condonation of delay details missing (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. arguments about nrhm administration analyzed (Para 8 , 9 , 11) |
| 4. past judgments establish precedent for bonus marks allocation (Para 14 , 15 , 20) |
| 5. delay in filing appeal must meet rigorous standards (Para 17 , 23) |
| 6. final dismissal based on lack of sufficient cause (Para 24 , 25) |
ORDER :
Sandeep Shah, J:
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29th August 2023 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11333 of 2017 titled “Kailash Chandar Lohar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.”, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the three writ petitions filed by the petitioners therein, including the writ petition refer to (supra) while observing that NRHM Scheme is being run under the aegis of Panchayati Raj Department, and therefore, the benefit quo the same are to the granted to the petitioner.
I.A. No.01/2024:
2. An application under section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 316 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 petitioner stating therein that the petitioner, is having the qualification for the post of LDC and that the petitioner was work on contract basis at T.B. Unit Vallabhnagar (Bhinder), Udiapur under the NRHM Project, since, 08th May 2008. 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 considered.
6. The petitioner had asserted that by an order dated 02nd October 2010, 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 even the NRHM scheme was handed over to the Panchayati Raj Department, and since the petitioner was appointed on a contractual basis under the NRHM scheme, he was also entitled to receive bonus marks. The petitioner also referred to the Circular dated 26th May 2017 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) issued by the Panchayati Raj Department, wherein, pursuant to the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Transferred Activities) Rules, 2011, and in light of a judgment passed by this Court, it was observed that the NRHM scheme and Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, up to the District level, had been transferred to the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, and the candidates working under these two schemes shall also be entitl
