Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, SANDEEP SHAH, JJ.
State of Rajasthan, through the Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj – Appellant
Versus
Suresh Kumar son of Shri Ram Gopal Vyas – Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 577 of 2025
Decided on : 01-07-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. I.R. Choudhary, AAG Mr. D.S. Pidiyas, AAAG for Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, AAG Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG Ms. Anita Rajpurohit, Advocate
Government departments must comply with the law of limitation, and experience gained under transferred schemes should be recognized for benefit entitlements.
Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Transferred Activities) Rules, 2011 - Rule 273 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Condonation of delay in filing appeal - Appellant failed to provide sufficient reasons for a delay of 561 days - The work of petitioner under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan was recognized by the learned Single Judge, directing the countersigning of experience certificate for bonus marks - The court reiterated the importance of judicial discipline, emphasizing that government bodies must adhere to the law of limitation rigorously. (Paras 3, 12, 24)
(B) Administrative efficiency - Government departments cannot claim laxity in procedural compliance; the law of limitation binds all. (Paras 20, 29)
Facts of the case:
The appeal was filed by the State regarding the grant of bonus marks for experience to the respondent who worked under a contract with the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Scheme, denied due to his non-alignment with the Panchayati Raj Department.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the experience of the respondent, being under the transferred scheme, warranted recognition, and the learned Single Judge rightly ordered the grant of the relief sought.
Issues: The main issue addressed was whether the petitioner was entitled to bonus marks based on his experience certificate despite working under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Scheme.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the experience gained under a transferred scheme is valid and should be considered for bonus marks, while emphasizing that government entities must adhere strictly to procedural timelines.
Result: D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.577 of 2025 is dismissed.
Order :
SANDEEP SHAH, J.
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 08th December 2022 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18239 of 2022 titled “Suresh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.”, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner and while following the judgment of “Jagrati Pandya v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.” in (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14087 of 2022, decided on 17th October 2022) directed the petitioner to be entitled for same relief as granted in Jagrati Pandya i.e. to countersign the experience certificate of the petitioner and grant of corresponding bonus marks in accordance with law.
I.A. No.01/2024:
2. An application under section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 561 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 he possess the qualification of Senior Secondary from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, and has also obtained degree of Graduation from Maharishi Dayanand Sarswati University, Ajmer. He further stated that he has got him himself enrolled in successfully completed the PGDCA, course in Computer Application from NIMS University, Rajasthan Jaipur. It was stated that the petitioner was appointed as Computer Operated under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Scheme on contract basis on 14th October 2008 and that the Scheme in question was being run by the Panchayati Raj Department. He further stated that an advertisement dated 14th February 2013 was issued by the Panchayati Raj Department inviting applications for the post to the 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 State advertisement, he was not granted bonus marks based upon the experience certificate on the ground that he was working Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Scheme and not under the Panchayati Raj Department and also for the aforesaid reasons his experience certificate was not countersigned.
6. The petitioner has referred to the Circular dated 26th May 2017 (Annexure-7 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 entitled for the grant of bonus marks for the work undertaken under the scheme.
7. The respondent, on the other hand, raised an objection before the learned Single Judge that the respondent-appellant was not working under the Panchayati Raj Department or MGNREGA, and therefore, was not entitled for grant of bonus marks as per Rule 273 of Rules of 1996.
8. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the arguments from both sides, allowed the writ petition while observing that the case in hand is similar to the case of “Jagarti Pandy
