- (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for petitioner.
(2.) PETITIONER has preferred this writ petition challenging the Notification dated 29.01.2013, issued by the Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, whereby existing second proviso to Rule 273 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996(hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1996'), has been substituted by a new proviso, as mentioned in the above Notification. Submission of the learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk, on contract basis, in the Office of the Assistant Director(Prosecution), Dholpur. From his experience certificate dated 17.12.2012(Annexure-5), it is clear that petitioner had worked for about 5 years and 3 months on the said post. He submitted that as per the amendment made in Rule 273 of the Rules of 1996, the persons who are working in MGNREGA or any other scheme of the Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj in the State, will get extra benefit as they will be awarded such marks, on the basis of their experience of more than one year, which will be taken into consideration while preparing the merit list for the post of LDC. He submitted that the State of Rajasthan is a welfare State and they cannot discriminate between two employees of two different departments. The petitioner had worked as LDC on contract basis in Prosecution Department and the same weightage should have been given to the experience acquired in other department, which is being given to persons who acquired experience in Panchayati Raj Department also. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned amendment made in Rule 273 of the Rules of 1996, vide Notification dated 29.01.2013, is arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and it may be declared as unconstitutional.
(3.) WE have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for petitioner.;