STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. ARCHANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These eight special leave petitions arise out of a common judgment dtd. 25/9/2013 of the High Court of Rajasthan. The issue involved in these matters is no more res integra and covered by the judgment of this Court in Sachivalya Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karamchari Union, Jaipur vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2016 (8) SCALE 64.

(2.) The Rajasthan Panchayti Raj Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") authorises the State of Rajasthan to carry out the objectives of the Act. In exercise of the power under the Act, Rules were framed by the State in the year 1996. Chapter 12 of the Rules relates to the recruitment and the service conditions for the Panchayati Raj Institutions in the State of Rajasthan. Rule 273 deals with the procedure for making recruitment to the various posts. The proviso to the said rule authorises the Government to give some weightage to the experience of the candidates seeking employment. In exercise of the said power, the State of Rajasthan propounded a policy for weightage for experience. In substance: the weightage is 10 marks for experience of more than one year but less than 2 years, 20 marks for the experience of more than 2 years but less than 3 years and 30 marks for experience of more than 3 years. The complete details of the entire system may not be relevant for the present purpose.

(3.) It is agreed on all hands that the facts leading in SLP(C)No.32008-32009/2013 be taken as representative facts in this batch of SLPs A writ petition came to be filed in the Rajasthan High Court by the first respondent herein-Archana in SLP(C)No.32008-32009/2013 praying that the above policy of the Government be implemented in the ongoing recruitment of the Junior Assistants in the Panchayati Raj Institutions. The learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, while hearing the matter entertained the doubt whether the said weightage proposed by the State is consistent with the law laid down by this Court in Uma Devi"s case (Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3) & Ors 2006 (4) SCC 1), therefore, referred the matter to a Division Bench.