Ganesh Prajapat @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the following reliefs :-

“(a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, any order denying candidature of the petitioner for the post of Junior accountant and TRA against

the category of BC, RG, ME may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondentsmay kindly be directed to consider candidature of the petitoner as BC, RG, ME

Category as he is working as Lower Division Clerk (Ministerial Staff) and permit the petitioner in the further selection process for the post of Junior

Accountant and Tehsil Revenue Accountant in pursuance of advertisement dated 18.09.2013 (Annex.1)

(c) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondentsmay kindly be directed to afford appointment to the petitioner on the post of Junior

Accountant and Tehsil Revenue Accountant as per his merit status in pursuance of the advertisement dated 18.9.2013 (Annex.1), if otherwise he

stands in merit against the category of BC, RG, ME with all consequential benefits.

(d) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which thisHon`ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may

kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

(e) Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed withcosts.â€​

The Brief facts as noticed by this Court are that the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer issued advertisement dated 18.9.2013 whereby

applications were invited for the post of Junior Accountant and Teshil Revenue Accountant (TRA). The petitioner working as LDC with Sardar Patel

University of Police, Security and Criminal Justice, Jodhpur (Established under the State Legislative Assembly Act of the Government of

Rajasthan) submitted his online application form for the post of Junior Accountant & TRA on 19.10.2013. The respondents subsequently amended the

advertisement on 16.4.2015 by bifurcating the post of Junior Accountant & TRA category-wise. The petitioner again filled his application on 11.6.2015

mentioning his category as Ministerial Employee (ME), which is clear from Annex.7. The petitioner went for document verification in the selection

process for the post of Junior Accountant at RPSC after seeking No Objection Certificate from Sardar Patel University. The petitioner’s

candidature was not considered by the RPSC on account of the fact that the petitioner did not fall under ME Category as he was working as LDC

with Sardar Patel University.

As per counsel for the petitioner, reservation is provided under the Rajasthan Subordinate Accounts Service Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as

the Rules of 1963). Rule 6 of the Rules of 1963, reads as under:

Method of recruitment. - Recruitment to the Service shall be made in the manner specified in column 3 of the Schedule by recruitment in

accordance with Part IV of these Rules; Provided that (i) if the appointing authority is satisfied in consultation with the Commission that suitable

persons are not available in a particular year for appointment as Accountants by either promotion or direct recruitment, appointment by either method

in relaxation of the prescribed proportion may be made in the same manner as prescribed in these Rules; and

(ii) Special recruitment to the posts of Junior Accountant shall be made from amongst the persons who have passed the Junior Diploma Course

Examination and Accounts Clerks according to the criteria and in the manner laid down in Part V of these Rules.

[(iii) Provided also further that 12 1/2% of the posts of Junior Accountants to be filled in by direct recruitment shall be reserved for being filled in from

amongst the ministerial staff of all the departments of the Government holding a post in the Cadre substantively, subject to their being found otherwise

eligible for such recruitment under the Rules. This reservation shall be carried forward only to the next succeeding year.]â€​

Thus, counsel for the petitioner pointed out that SubRule (III) of Rule 6, which has been reproduced above gives reservation to 12.5% posts of

Junior Accountant in direct recruitment from amongst the Ministerial employees of all the Departments of the State Government.

Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Kailash Jangid has shown document Annex.19 dated 26.6.2015Â by which Administrative Department of Sardar

Patel University, Jodhpur has been changed from Higher Education Department to Home Department. The document Annex.20 dated 29.5.2017

further reflects that the budget of University is passed by the Home Department. Counsel for the petitioner has also shown other document i.e.

National Pension System, Central Record Keeping Agency (CRA) whereby name of Sardar Patel University, Jodhpur is there in Ministry of Home

Affairs and the Department is Home Department, therefore, as per learned counsel for the petitioner LDC of Sardar Patel University being a

regularly selected employee is entitled for the benefit of 12.5% reservation in pursuance of the advertisement aforesaid. Counsel for the petitioner

further argued that Ministerial Employee of Discom has been considered as Ministerial Employee of the State for the purpose of appointment on the

post of Junior Accountant in Surendra Kumar Vyas & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7239/2017, decided on

18.12.2018), thus, urged that petitioner’s case being on the same pedestal, the petitioner be also considered for the post of Junior Accountant

treating him in ME Category. It was further argued that Hon`ble Division Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Surendra Kumar Vyas

& Ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal Writ NO.635/2018, decided on 26.4.2018)Â has affirmed the order of Single Bench.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reservation of 12.5% posts is being denied only on account of the fact that technically the University is

not a Department of the Government and thus, cannot be included in the purview of 12.5% reservation.

Counsel for the respondents have pointed out that any such inclusion shall deprive the special category of employees who are directly serving for

the State to have an incentive in the shape of the reservation of 12.5%.

Counsel for the respondents have further pointed out that the University is a purely autonomous body and even if they are ministerial employees of

the concerned body, they cannot be said to be employees of State Department of State of Rajasthan and until the Sub-Rule (iii) of Rule 6 of Rules of

1963 is in existence, the same has to be implemented strictly.

Counsel for the respondents also pointed out that the legislative intention of providing 12.5% posts to the Junior Accountant for the purpose of direct

recruitment from amongst the ministerial staff of Department of Government was to have incentive and career advancement for the ministerial

staff of the Department of Government of Rajasthan and since the petitioner is neither governed by Rajasthan Secretariat Ministerial Service Rules

nor by Subordinate Ministerial Service rules therefore, they would not fall under the definition, which was provided in both the Rules. The respondents

have shown the definition of ministerial is as per the Rule 9 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 and Rule 19 of

the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951.

Counsel for the respondents have further pointed out that the University is a separate entity and cannot be considered as Department of State of

Rajasthan and hence, they are not employees of ministerial staff of State of Rajasthan as per the existing law and cannot be given benefit of Sub-Rule

(iii) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1963.

Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in Jitendra Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6947/2017) decided on 07.09.2017. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:

“Heard learned counsels for the rival parties and given my thoughtful consideration over the statutory provisions and the judgments cited at Bar.

A bare look at the provisions contained in Rule 6 (iii) of the Rules of 1963 reveals that an employee can be said to be falling in the scope of sub-rule

(iii) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1963, if he can set himself on trivets of three conditions namely (1) he must be a ministerial staff secondly; (ii) he must

hail from department of Government and (iii) he must have been appointed substantively.

As far as third condition is concerned, there is no quarrel that the petitioners have been appointed substantively. The bone of contention is only as to

whether the petitioners satisfy the other twin conditions of being Government employee and ministerial staff.

To find out whether the petitioners fulfill the other two requisite conditions, this Court deems it appropriate to first decide as to whether Panchayati Raj

Institution or Department falls within the contours of ‘department of Government’. For finding answer to this question, this Court is not required

to dilate upon much, as two Division Benches of this Court have already passed detailed judgments and held that the employees of Panchayati Raj

Departments are Government servants. The post involved in Niyaz Mohammed’s case (supra) was that of a Teacher Grade-III in a Government

Primary School of a Panchayat Samiti, when the Division Bench of this Court held that the petitioner in that case, is a Government employee and civil

servant under the State Government and resultantly, entitled for three years’ relaxation in age, as applicable to the State Government employees.

The Division Bench in another case of Richhpal Singh (supra) has reiterated its earlier view and held that the recruitment to the post of Primary

School Teacher Grade-III falls in the category of State services. (As concluded in para 43 of the judgment reproduced hereinabove).

In view of above two judgments, the controversy as to whether the petitioners working under various Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads are

government servant or not or the employee of the department of Government is a foregone conclusion and nothing remains to be decided or

considered on this aspect of the matter.

Coming to the other limb of the trivet, as to whether the petitioners fall in the ambit of ‘ministerial staff’ or not, some adjudication is required to

be made, as this question has perhaps not been decided so far, by this Court.

A bare book at the provisions contained in Rule 258 (c) (i) and (ii) of the Rules of 1996 reveals that the petitioners working as LDCs/UDCs are

covered by the expression ‘ministerial staff’ as the term ‘ministerial service’ includes Upper Division Clerk and Lower Division Clerk.

Even the definition of ‘ministerial servant’ as provided in Clause (19) of Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Service Rules reproduced above, leave no

room for ambiguity that Lower Division Clerks and Upper Division Clerks fall within the scope of ministerial servant.

The term ‘ministerial’ means clerical or subordinate as defined in Oxford Dictionary as under :

“ministerial/ adjective & noun.

[ORIGIN French ministerial or late Latin ministerials, from Latin ministerium MINISTRY, but app. Interpreted as deriv, of MINISTER noun: see â€

IAL] A adjective.

 1 Pertaining to the office, function, or character of a minister of religion.

2 Pertaining to or entrusted with theexecution of the law or the commands of a superiors.

3 Subsidiary or instrumental in achievinga purpose etc.

4 Of or pertaining to a Minister of Stateor a government department; supporting the Government against the Opposition.â€​

The term ‘ministerial’ as defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, Edition-IX, is also quoted hereunder :-

“ministerial, adj (16c) Of or relating to an act that involves obedience to instruction or laws instead of discretion, judgment, or skill court clerk’s

ministerial duties include recording judgments on the docket>.â€​

In view of the above discussions, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the posts of LDCs and UDCs held by the petitioners fall within the scope

of ministerial staff. In opinion of this Court, the term ‘ministerial’ has been used as an adjective to define the expression “staff of all the

departments of the Governmentâ€. In other words sub-rule (iii) of Rule 6 seeks to embrace staff of all the departments of Government with a

condition that such staff should be engaged in ministerial work. As such, even if the post of LDCs and UDCs have not been strictly defined as

ministerial staff as per this Court, by very nature of the duties, discharged by the petitioners (LDCs and UDCs), they fall within the expression of

‘ministerial staff’.

As an upshot of the analysis above, this Court has reached to a conclusion that the petitioners, working as LDCs and UDCs in various Panchayat

Samitis and Zila Parishads, discharging ministerial work, are employees of the State of Rajasthan and are as such held entitled to stake their claim

against 437 posts reserved for “ministerial staff of all the departments of the Government holding the post substantivelyâ€​.

The writ petition is thus, allowed. Condition No.3 of the letter dated 11.05.2017 of the Secretary, Finance (Revenue) to the extent, it excludes

employees of Panchayati Raj Department is declared illegal and hence quashed.

On 27.07.2017, this Court had passed the following order as interim measure :-

“In the meantime, the Staterespondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioners for the purpose of appointment on the post of

Junior Accountant as substantive employee under 12.5% State Government Employees Quota. However, the petitioners’ appointment shall be

subject to outcome of this writ petition.â€​

The respondents are directed to provide appointment orders and appropriate posting to such of the petitioners, who stand in the merit list and are

otherwise eligible. Needful be done within a period of one month from today.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case as well as the precedent law cited at Bar, this Court is of the

opinion that the legislative intention of giving 12.5% reservation in accordance with the Sub-Rule (III) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1963 was to provide

the State ministerial employees with a special privilege of entering into the government service at the level of Junior Accountant by virtue of giving

them preference. On account of their experience of serving the State as well as to give them an incentive in the shape of a special opportunity of

career advancement. The legislative intention of restricting the benefit of 12.5% reservation to the ministerial staff of only Departments of

Government was that they had such experience which would be beneficial for discharging their services in the future service of the State. The

preference of Departments of Government of Rajasthan was to exclude any other elected, nominated or appointed employee who would not have

rendered the services of State directly as agency of the State and would not have the requisite experience so as to entitle him for such preference of

12.5% reservation of ministerial staff as per the Rules of 1963. For all practical purposes the petitioner has been appointed with the University, where

the State exercises deep and pervasive, administrative and financial control of the respondents. The petitioners have been able to point from the

documents that the State is having 100% financial control over the respondents. So much so that even the posts of Commercial Assistant-I (UDC)

and Commercial Assistant â€" II (LDC) are being sanctioned by the respondents.

This Court has also observed that the appointment orders contain the nomenclature of Sardar Patel University of Police as a Government of

Rajasthan undertaking and the reflections are amply clear.Â

It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has already qualified on merits and the only reluctance on the part of respondents was to

administer the 12.5% reservation available to the ministerial staff for the Department of Government of Rajasthan upon the petitioner.

Though, it is true that the separate University has been formed making it a separate legal entity but for seeing the implication the Sub-Rule (iii) of

Rule 6 of the Rules of 1963, this Court has to determine as to whether the University will come within the purview of Department of Government of

Rajasthan for the purpose of such reservation or not and the answer to it is that in the broader definition of Department of State of Rajasthan shall

include the employees of University as they for the all practical purposes are discharging public duties as the employees of any of the Department of

State Government.

The Sub Rule (iii) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1963 while mentioning the term Department of Government, cannot be construed strictly only upon the

technically declared employee of the Department of the Government of Rajasthan and has to include all the limbs of State of Rajasthan, who

practically are discharging the same functions whether it is in the reformative area, productive area and distributive area or any other administrative

functions which are in the present case being discharged by the University.

This Court has noticed that on all occasions, the Government of Rajasthan has reflected its Home Department to be in control of the University in

concern and thus, any separation for the purpose of depriving the benefit of 12.5% to the ministerial employees shall be detrimental to the rights of

present petitioners.

Thus, this Court finds that the University is not a body so separate or so independent so as to have individual impact on its employees altogether.

Rather the legislative intention is clearly for providing the preference to the ministerial staff of the Department of Government of Rajasthan to include

such employees who are discharging the duties of Home Department. The precedent law does not apply in the present case as the Vinay Mohan

Kiradoo (supra) is dealing with the category change and cannot have any bearing in the present case and the case of Dhirendra Sharma (supra) is

only dealing with the applicability of Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1996 which cannot have any bearing in the present case.

In view of the aforesaid observations and discussions, the present writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to give 12.5%

reservation to the petitioner for the appointment to the post of Junior Accountant under the Rules of 1963 treating University to be a Department of

Government in light of the Sub-Rule (iii) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1963. It is needless to say that any order debarring the petitioner from being treated

as Ministerial staff of the Department of Government of Rajasthan shall have no effect in the present recruitment and the petitioner shall be

considered in 12.5% seats reserved for ministerial employees in Department of State on his own merit. Necessary consideration shall be made within

a period of 60 days from passing of this order.