HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 965 / 2015

1.

The State of Rajasthan through the Dy. Secretary, Technical

Education Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2.

The Director, Directorate of Technical Education, Rajasthan,

Jodhpur.

3.

Principal, Government Polytechnic College, Sri Ganganagar.

----Appellants

Versus

Harminder Kaur D/o Late Sh. Gurmel Singh, aged 45 years,

Resident of 2029, Agarsen Nagar, Sri Ganganagar.

----Respondent

_____________________________________________________

For Appellant(s) : Mr. P.R. Singh, Addl. Advocate General

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit

_____________________________________________________

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.R. MOOLCHANDANI

Judgment

20/02/2017

To question the correctness of the order dated 09.07.2015

passed by learned Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.10858/2012, this appeal is preferred.

The appeal is barred by limitation from 40 days.

A notice of the application was issued by this court on

03.05.2016. Shri Mukesh Rajpurohit has put in appearance on

behalf of respondent herein and submitted that no justifiable

reason is extended in the application preferred under Section 5 of

the Limitation Act. According to learned counsel, the contents of

application do not disclose any bonafide reason for causing delay.

(2 of 5)

[SAW-965/2015]

It is further submitted that no reasons are given by the appellant

to explain delay on day-to-day basis.

While examining the application preferred under Section 5 of

the Limitation Act, we have also looked into merits of the case.

Succinctly, facts of the case are that the respondent herein,

being ward of a deceased government servant, was employed as

Stenographer (English) in the pay-scale of Rs.1400-2600 under

Office Order No.208 dated 03.12.1994. The appointment was

accorded to her as per provisions of the Rajasthan (Recruitment of

Dependants of Government Servant Dying while in service) Rules,

1975. The order of appointment dated 03.12.1994 contains a

condition of qualifying efficiency test relating to Stenography

(English) as per sub-rule(2) of Rule 8 of the Rules of 1975, that

reads as follows:-

“8(2) The procedural requirement for selection, such as written

test, typing test, or interview by a Selection Committee or any

other Authority to interview the candidate in order to satisfy

that the candidate will be able to maintain the minimum

standards of work and efficiency expected on the post or to

prescribe any condition if considered necessary, for acquiring

any training or proficiency e.g. typing speed or any other

qualifications etc., within a reasonable period after such

employment under these Rules.”

The appellant, at the first instance, conducted an efficiency

test in the year 1996, but the respondent herein failed to appear

therein due to certain unavoidable reasons. After 1996, at the first

instance, the efficiency test was conducted in the year 2011 but

the respondent failed to qualify the same. The appellant, thus,

denied selection grades to her as per the Government of

Rajasthan decision notified under an order dated 17.04.1998.

(3 of 5)

[SAW-965/2015]

Being aggrieved by the same, she preferred a petition for writ that

came to be accepted under the judgment impugned.

Learned Single Bench, while accepting the writ petition, held

that the respondent being in employment as Stenographer from

last several years, must have acquired efficiency and, therefore,

the denial of selection grades is unjustifiable. While arriving at the

conclusion as above, the learned Single Bench relied upon a

judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Girdhari

Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan [D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W)

No.7/2002, decided on 09.04.2002].

In appeal, the argument advanced by learned Additional

Advocate General Shri P