[2025:RJ-JD:34724-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1064/2024

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Jaipur.

2. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Chittorgarh.

----Appellants Versus Rajmal Khatik S/o Shri Shankar Lal Khatik, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village - Suraj Nagar, Post Lulas, Shahpura, District -

Bhilwara (Raj.). ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. I.R. Choudhary, AAG with Mr. Pawan Bharti For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Singh HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA

Order

06/08/2025

1. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submits that the present controversy pertains to the allocation of bonus marks to the respondent for the work performed as a Data Entry Operator on a ‘Job Basis’ under the MGNREGA Scheme in the Panchayat Samiti from 15.11.2008 to 30.06.2010. He submits that for the LDC recruitment of 2013, the respondent’s claim for bonus marks based on job basis employment is not valid. He referred to Rule 273 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, particularly proviso 2, which reads as under :-

“Provided also that in case of appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk, merit shall be prepared by the Appointing Authority on the basis of such weightage as may be specified by the State Government for the marks obtained in Senior Secondary or its equivalent examination and such marks as may be specified by the State Government having regard to the length of experience exceeding one year acquired by persons engaged on the post of Junior Technical Assistant (J.T.A.) Junior Engineer, Gram Rozgar Sahayak, Data Entry Operator, Computer Operator with Machine, Lekha Sahayak, Lower Division Clerk, Co-ordinator 1EC, Coordinator Training, Coordinator Supervision, other than through placement agency, in MGNREGA or in any other scheme of the Department of the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj in the State.”

2. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that since the employment was on a job basis, it does not fall within the scope of ‘engagement’ as contemplated under the rules.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the term ‘engagement’ has to be interpreted broadly. He submits that where continuous engagement exceeds one year, Rule 273 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, applies. He further submits that the engagement must be considered in light of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mitendra Singh Rathore v. State of Rajasthan (2013) 4 RLW (Raj.) 3451, which has attained finality following the dismissal of the State’s appeal by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He further contends that bonus marks could only be denied if the job basis employment lacked continuity or if there were deficiencies in the period or nature of the tasks performed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-State fairly admits that the respondent’s work involved continuity and that the nature of the tasks performed was same, however, he opposes the grant of bonus marks solely on the ground that the engagement was on a job basis, which does not entitle the respondent to such marks.

5. This Court finds that word ‘engagement’ is broadly construed. Unless a specific provision in the statute explicitly excludes a person performing tasks of the same nature, duration, and standard for more than one year, the State cannot deny bonus marks, as it would cause undue prejudice to the respondent.

6. This Court is of the firm opinion that once the judgment of Mitendra Singh Rathore (supra) is affirmed by the Supreme Court, and in light of the established framework for awarding bonus marks under the statute, fragmenting the term "engagement" based solely on the nomenclature of the job type, would be contrary to the statute's spirit. Rule 273 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, clearly uses the term ‘engagement,’ which is broad in scope. The State has already adm