Jaipur: Rajasthan High Court has sought solutions from the Principal Panchayati Raj Secretary, Panchayati Raj Director and Chief Executive Officer of Dholpur within the matter associated to seniority of Village Level Officers appointed in several districts in the identical recruitment primarily based on their appointment date and everlasting appointment as an alternative of benefit. The division bench of CJ MM Shrivastava and Justice Ashutosh Kumar gave this order whereas conducting the preliminary listening to on Jitendra Singh’s petition.
In the petition, advocate Harendra Neel stated that within the 12 months 1999, district-wise Village Level Officer recruitment was carried out. The written examination of which was performed on the similar time by a typical query paper. At the identical time, the involved district administration appointed the chosen candidates to this publish at completely different instances at its personal stage. Under which the petitioner was appointed in Dholpur district. It was stated within the petition that underneath Rule 285 of Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, it was determined to make the seniority listing of Village Level Officer publish from the date of appointment and permanentization of the involved workers.
Read: Order to retain constables who have been ignored of the revised consequence – Rajasthan High Court
Challenging this provision within the petition, it was stated that within the petitioner’s case, all of the candidates have been recruited on the similar time and thru a typical query paper. However, on account of administrative causes, many districts gave late appointment to the profitable candidates. Challenging the constitutionality of Rule 285 within the petition, it was stated that underneath this rule, the Village Officer of the district through which the appointment is finished first, turns into senior to the officer of the district which gave the late appointment. Seniority must be decided on the premise of mutual benefit of the officers. In the case, workers with much less benefit than the petitioner have been promoted on the premise of their appointment date. Due to which the elemental rights of the petitioner have been violated. Hearing on this, the division bench has sought a reply from the involved officers.
