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 based mostly on their appointment date and everlasting standing as a substitute of advantage. 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 executed. The written examination of which was carried out on the identical time by a typical query paper. At the identical time, the involved district administration appointed the chosen candidates to this submit at completely different instances at its personal degree. Under which the petitioner was appointed in Dholpur district. It was stated within the petition that beneath Rule 285 of Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, it was determined to make the seniority listing of Village Level Officer submit from the date of appointment and permanentization of the involved workers.
Read: Order to retain constables who have been ignored of the revised outcome – 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 identical time and thru a typical query paper. However, as a result 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 beneath this rule, the Village Officer of the district by which the appointment is completed first, turns into senior to the officer of the district which gave the late appointment. Seniority ought to be decided on the idea of mutual advantage of the officers. In the case, workers with much less advantage than the petitioner have been promoted on the idea of their appointment date. Due to which the basic rights of the petitioner have been violated. Hearing on this, the division bench has sought a reply from the involved officers.
