NITIN CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 31.12.2013, Annexure-18 and 31.01.2014, Annexure-20 passed by the respondents and has further sought directions, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Lower Division Clerk with all consequential benefits.

(2.) In the instant case, it appears that the petitioner was appointed as the Lower Division Clerk on 12.02.2009, on compassionate ground after the death of his father, who was in service of the respondents as the Land surveyor. One of the conditions of his appointment as contained in the appointment letter dated 12.02.2009 was that he had to clear the typing test of LDC within a period of three years of his appointment, which may be conducted by the Language and Library Department of the respondents. It further appears that the said department had conducted the typing test on 07.05.2010, however the petitioner could not appear in the said test as he was sent for training programme census-2011. In another typing test held on 14.07.2011, the petitioner was not allowed to appear as he had not applied in proper form. In the meantime, since the probation period of the petitioner was getting over, the same was extended for one more year from 13.02.2011 to 12.02.2012. It appears that thereafter the Language department had again conducted the typing test on 25.04.2012, however in that typing test also the petitioner did not appear on the ground that his grand mother had expired and he was on leave from 16.04.2012 to 27.04.2012. Again it appears that the petitioner was allowed to appear in the typing test held on 20.06.2013 by way of last opportunity, however he could not clear the same. Hence the respondents passed the impugned order dated 31.12.2013 terminating his services on the ground that he had failed to clear the typing test within three years of his appointment as per the condition No.9 of his appointment order.

(3.) It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Anoop Dhand for the petitioner that because of certain circumstances beyond his control, the petitioner could not clear the typing test inasmuch as the petitioner could not appear in the test conducted in 2010, as he was sent for training programme-census, and could not appear in the test conducted in 2011, as there was some defect in his application form. He further submitted that in the test conducted in the year 2012, the petitioner could not appear as his grandmother had expired and the fourth time, when the test was conducted, the respondents had amended the relevant rule by incorporating computer type test instead of simple type test, and the petitioner being not well conversant with the computer, he could not qualify the same. Relying upon the decision of this Court in case of Mool Chand Versus The State of Rajasthan,2005 5 WLC(Raj) 450, he has submitted that the case of the petitioner be sympathetically considered and one last chance be given to the petitioner to appear in the typing test that may be held in future by the concerned department of the respondents. However, the learned counsel Mr. Dharmendra Pareek for the respondents, submitted that the petitioner having been given sufficient chances to clear the typing test, he had failed to do so and even otherwise his services were terminated on 31.12.2013, which order was already executed, however by virtue of the exparte interim order passed by the Court, the petitioner was again taken back with a view to comply the said order. According to him, the petitioner otherwise did not have any right to continue in the service.