SARDARA RAM DANGI Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE JODHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS special appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 1. 9. 90, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the appellant's writ petition.

(2.) THE appellant Sardara Ram Dangi was appointed as Class IV servant on 16. 5. 80. He passed the (Prathma' examination of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan in the year 1983 and that examination has been recognised by the Government of Rajasthan as equivalent to the Secondary Examination of the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer vide Ex. 2. Rule 10 (2) of the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986 provides Secondary or its qaulifica-tions recognised by the State Government to be the qualification for the post of Lower Division Clerk. Upto 10% Class IV employees can be appointed as Lower Division Clerks in accordance with Circular of the High Court, if peons have put in five years service and possess the requisite qualifications for appointment of the post of Lower Division Clerks. THEre is a further Roster system applicable in accordance with which the vacancies have to be filled up from the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. THE petitioner's claim is that he is eligible for promotion to the post of Lower Division Clerks as he fulfills the requisite qualifications and other conditions. He further claims his promotion on the basis of Scheduled Caste quota. THE petitioner made representation in this regard but with no consequence. THE petitioner, the refare,prayed, that a direction be given to the respondents to. promote the petitioner according to the Roster System from the date Shri Iqbal was promoted. He also prayed that notification Ex. 12 and the Circular Ex 13 may be quashed.

(3.) MR. Singhvi, learned counsel for the appellant further contended that in Part II of sub-rule (2) of rule 10 of the Rules of 1986, the word 'or' should be read as disjunctively and no examination of any University is required to be recognised. It is only when any examination is conducted by the Board. , that is required to be recognised by the State Government for equivalence but for University examination, such recognition is not necessary. We are agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. The expression "or any examination of a University or Board recognised as equivalent thereto by the Government" is to be read as a whole and the word "or" occurring in between the two words; "university and Board", is not to be read in the manner as contended by MR. Singhvi, learned counsel for the appellant. An examination whether conducted by the University or by the Board is required to be recognised by the State Government as equivalent to the Secondary Examination of the Rajasthan Board of Secondary. Education. The word 'university' cannot be read separately, the 'examination' occurring in the aforesaid expression refers to the examination of the University as well as of the Board, so, recognition of such examination is necessary by the Government as equivalent to the Secondary Examination of the Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education. This contention was advanced on the basis that the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan (Prayag) is a Hindi University. This contention proceeds is a University. It has to be examined as to whether Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag is at all a University. If it is not found do be a University or a deemed University, then aforesaid contention of the learned counsel that the word 'or' should be read disjunctively, will not arise. Although we have considered the contention that the word 'or' is to be read as disjunctively assuming that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant has force, that Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is a University.