Dashrath Chauhan v. State of Rajasthan Ors., has observed as under

Judgment

1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur Raj.

2. The Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Staff Selection Board, Jaipur Through Its Secretary, Raja, Durgapura, Jaipur Raj.

3. Revenue Board, Ajmer Through Its Secretary. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Ms. Pragya Seth & For Respondent(s) Mr. Shreyansh Dhariwal : Mr. Umesh Choudhary for Mr. V.D. Gathala, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 27/08/2025

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- " In these circumstances, it is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to accept this writ petition and:- i) Impugned final selection list dated 02.10.2017 wherein humble petitioner has not been selected and impugned verbal rejection of humble petitioner for the post of Patwari even on possessing the higher qualification to the required RSCIT qualification provided in the advertisement dated 04.11.2015 may kindly de declared illegal and arbitrary and therefore, same may kindly be quashed and set aside; ii) The respondents may kindly be directed by issuing appropriate, writ, order or direction in the nature thereof:- [2025:RJ-JP:34134] (2 of 5) [CW-21495/2017] (a) to consider the Diploma in Information Technology from 1 Signal Training Centre, Jabalpur which is more than03 months duration, as higher qualification to RSCIT and therefore, to treat petitioner as eligible for the post of Patwari; (b) to consider and give appointment to humble Petitioner on the post of Patwari with all consequential benefits; iii) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may kindly also be passed in favour of the Petitioner."

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the identical facts and circumstances, the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in a batch of cases led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.21426/2017, Dashrath Chauhan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., has observed as under:- "6. The contention of counsel for the petitioners is that the qualification in computer education, possessed by the petitioners, is equivalent or higher than the qualification, prescribed in the advertisement or under the Rule 273(4)(1) of the Rules of 1957 as amended vide Notification dated 12.08.2015. Hence, their prayer is that on the basis of such qualification of the petitioners, their candidature ought to have been considered for appointment on merits, for post of Patwari or in the alternative, their verbal prayer is that the respondent-Board, before declining to consider the candidature of the petitioners on merits, ought to have sought clarification/report from the State Government in respect of equivalence of the certificate courses in computer education possessed by the petitioners, with the certificate courses prescribed in the advertisement dated 04.11.2015 as requisite and acceptable computer qualification for the post of Patwari. 8. Submission of counsel for petitioners is that the Board should have undertaken such process of obtaining the guidelines/opinion of the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, in respect of computer qualification of the other writ petitioners as well and the action of the Board, rejecting candidature of the petitioners verbally during the course of document verification, is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative to the principle of natural Justice. It has been urged that the petitioners have secured higher marks in the written examination than the selected candidates, [2025:RJ-JP:34134] (3 of 5) [CW-21495/2017] hence, declining to consider their candidature for appointment on merits, is nothing but an arbitrary and despotic action of the respondent-Board, which cannot be countenanced under the law. It has been argued that legal and constitutional rights of the petitioners, vested by virtue of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India, have been violated. 14. In respect of issuance of the letter dated 27.04.2018 by the Board, for seeking opinion of Department of Personnel, about the equivalence of computer educational/ Certificates of petitioner-Nar Singh Awana is concerned, learned Additional Advocate General does not dispute issuance of such letter by the Board and submits that since, after publication of the advertisement, few of the computer courses and qualification of B.Tech, etc. with the computer subject, were also approved/ recognized by the Board, for grant of appointment on the post of Patwari in the present Recruitment- 2015, hence, such letter dated 27.04.2018 was issued, for seeking guidelines/opinion of the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan. But finally, counsel for respondents have prayed for dismissal of writ petitions. 16. The issue, which arose for consideration before this Court, is as to whether the qualification of Computer Education/Certificate Courses possessed by the petitioners, have equivalence or can be considered equivalent para materia to the Computer Courses, prescribed in the advertisement dated 04.11.2015 for the post of Patwari?"

3. After taking note of aforesaid facts, the Co-ordinate Bench in the aforesaid judgment has given following directions:- "27. Hence, this Court reaches to a conclusion that it would be in the interest of justice and in equity that the Board should ask from the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan about the equivalence of the qualification of computer education of all the petitioners, with the qualification of computer education, as prescribed in the advertisement dated 04.11.2015 or considered as eligible qualification by the respondents in the present recruitment-2015 for the post of Patwari and direct so. It is hereby observed that the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan would be at liberty to seek assistance of the Experts, if so desire, before giving its final opinion/report. It is hereby further directed that if the opinion/report of Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, goes to show that the qualification of computer education of [2025:RJ-JP:34134] (4 of 5) [CW-21495/2017] petitioners or any of them, Is equivalent/ para materia to the prescribed or eligible qualification in the present recruitment-2015 and the petitioner(s) fall(s) in merit, he/she shall be offered appointment on the post of Patwari against the unfilled and vacant post available with the respondents. The appointment of selected candidates shall not be disturbed in any manner. Nevertheless, the appointment of candidates, granted provisionally under the interim orders of Court, may be interfered with by the respondents, as per final opinion of Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan about qualification."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant case also be disposed of in the light of aforesaid judgment of Dashrath Chauhan (supra), wherein directions have been given to respondent-Board to seek equivalence of qualification of computer education from the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan and to take decision accordingly.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that directions given in the Dashrath Chauhan (supra) were confined only to the petitioners in the aforesaid case and cannot be made applicable in other cases.

7. Heard and considered. It appears that the petitioner also filed the instant writ petition when the aforesaid case of Dashrath Chauhan (supra) was pending before this Court, however, it could not be listed along with the batch of petitions. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the relief which has been granted in the aforesaid case, only on account of the fact that the instant writ petition was not decided along with the case of the Dashrath Chauhan (supra).

8. Learned counsel for the respondents however, does not dispute that directions have been given in the aforesaid case of [2025:RJ-JP:34134] (5 of 5) [CW-21495/2017] Dashrath Chauhan (supra) to the respondent-Board to seek equivalence of the qualification of computer education.

9. In view of above, the instant writ petition is disposed of with directions that the equivalence of qualification acquired by the petitioner shall also be examined in the light of directions given by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Para-27 of aforesaid judgment dated 12.07.2025 passed in the case of Dashrath Chauhan (supra).

10. In view of above discussion, writ petition stands disposed of. DIVYA /62 (ANAND SHARMA),J