PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI,J. -
(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order dated 29.11.2017 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11345/2017 (Anwer Hussain Dyer and Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.) is required to be recalled in light of the fact that the averment made by the Government Advocate and recorded in para no.2 is an incorrect statement. Simultaneously, the order dated 25.5.2018 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8506/2017 (Shiv Prakash Tailor and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.) on the basis of the aforesaid order dated 29.11.2017 is also required to be recalled.
(2.) After perusing the record of the case and finding that mistakenly the Government Advocate has made a wrong submission, the orders dated 29.11.2017 and 25.5.2018 are recalled.
(3.) Learned counsel for the parties are however in agreement that the issue involved in both the writ petitions is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4637/2019 (Anoop Kakra vs. State and Anr.) decided on 12.4.2019, which reads as follows :-
"This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to awarding bonus marks for the purpose of appointment on the post of LDC, pursuant to LDC Recruitment-2013. It is, inter-alia, claimed in the writ petition that the petitioner had worked as Gram Vikas Adhikari under the Aajivika Mission (Pilot Project) for period from 14.07.2010 to 31.01.2013. The petitioner applied pursuant to the advertisement Annex.-7, wherein, inter-alia, bonus marks for the experience were required to be awarded. However, the respondents did not award the bonus marks to the petitioner on the ground that services rendered by the petitioner as per the certificate produced did not fall within the parameters meant for award of bonus marks. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the work undertaken by the petitioner under the Aajivika Mission was being implemented by the department of Panchayati Raj and Rural Development and therefore, looking to the nature of requirements for award of bonus marks, the respondents cannot deny award of such marks. Submissions were made that under Rule 273 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 ('the Rules') the purport and purpose for award of bonus marks is to have worked under the department and once from the reply of the respondents it is admitted that the Aajivika Mission was implemented by the Panchayati Raj Department merely because the Aajivika Mission was a scheme of the Central Government, the said aspect cannot be used for the purpose of denying the petitioner benefit of experience and therefore, the action of the respondents in this regard cannot be sustained. Reliance has been placed on judgment in Ramniwas v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. : SBCWP No.10519/2017, decided on 08.02.2018. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents made submissions that in terms of Clause 11 of the advertisement, only those candidates working in positions and projects indicated therein were entitled for award of bonus marks and as admittedly, the petitioner has not worked under any of the said position, the petitioner is not entitled for award of bonus marks. Submissions have been made that the Aajivika Mission, is a project of the Central Government and as such, the same does not qualify for the purpose of award of bonus marks. Attempt was also made to make submissions that the nature of work being undertaken by the petitioner was not such which could be categorised towards the required work for award of bonus marks and on that count also, the petitioner is not entitled for award of bonus marks and the petition deserves dismissal. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. The proviso to Rule 273 of the Rules, which deals with award of bonus marks, 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 non 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 Rural Development and Panchayati Raj in the State."
A perusal of the said provision, would reveal that several positions/posts have been indicated including Gram Rozgar Sahayak and the entire purport is that if the scheme is under the Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj in the State, the candidate was entitled for award of bonus marks. This Court in the case of Ramniwas (supra) relying on judgment in the case of Manohar Lal Jaga v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5861/2013, decided on 18.04.2014, inter-alia, laid down as under :-
"4. Thus, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has read down the Rules of 273 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Rules 2013 which have been quoted above and which provides for weightage to the experience in MNAREGA or any other schemes of the Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj in the State.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to refute that the petitioners who have experience of MIS is not under MNAREGA which is under the Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj in the State. Learned counsel for the respondents specifically avers that the post of MIS shall not be mentioned in the advertisement, however, the later part of the proviso which generalize the schemes including the MNAREGA under the Panchayati Raj Department could not be explained by the counsel for the respondent.
6. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that Rule 273 has a wide connotation and particularly the proviso has an express legislative intention of providing weightage to be experience gained from MNAREGA or any other scheme of the Department of Rural and Panchayati Raj in the State and since the petitioners are under one of those schemes i.e. MIS, and the petitioners have experience of the post of MIS which is obviously under the same nomenclature, therefore, the writ petitions are allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for their appointment within a period of 30 days from today by granting them appropriate weightage, if they are otherwise found eligible and qualified on their own merits. Any order prejudicial to the claim of the petitioners regarding consideration for grant of MIS Bonus marks shall not come in way of their appointment."
The entire emphasis of the judgment in the case of Ramniwas (supra), has been that if the candidate has worked under the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, the candidate irrespective of the fact whether the scheme was of the department or the department was an implementing agency, was entitled for award of bonus marks.
From the reply, this fact is admitted that the Aajivika Mission, which is a scheme of Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, has been implemented by the Panchayati Raj Department.
In view of the above fact situation, in so far as the services rendered by the petitioner under the Aajivika Mission is concerned, as the same is implemented by the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, the same is required to be considered for award of bonus marks. Coming to the nature of service rendered by the petitioner and the requirement of the Rules is concerned, as noticed earlier as per Rules, even a Gram Panchayat Sahayak is entitled for award of bonus marks and admittedly, the petitioner had worked as Gram Vikas Adhikari under the Aajivika Mission, which is a higher position and therefore, apparently, there is no reason for the respondents to indicate that the nature of work undertaken by the petitioner was such that he was not entitled for the award of bonus marks based on his experience.
In view thereof, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The respondents are directed to award bonus marks to the petitioner based on the experience certificate produced by the petitioner, if he is otherwise entitled for the award of such bonus marks. Further, in case, the petitioner is otherwise eligible and stands in merit, he may be accorded appointment in accordance with law. Needful may be done within a period of four weeks from today." ;