HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7239 / 2017
1. Surendra Kumar Vyas S/o Shri Narendra Kumar Vyas, Aged
About 31 Years, Resident Of- D/390, Murlidhar Vyas Nagar,
Bikaner.
2. Jhanwar Lal Suthar S/o Shri Pappu Ram Suthar, Aged About 28
Years, Resident Of- Shiv Shakti Nagar, Gangashahar, Bikaner.

3. Ankur Dadhich S/o Shri Jyoti Swaroop Dadhich, Aged About 27

Years, Resident Of- 49, Dachich Nagar, Outside Mahamandir 3rd
Pole, Jodhpur.

4. Bhimchand Gosai S/o Shri Bhura Ram Gosai, Aged About 29

Years, Resident Of- Shivnathpura, Ward No.23, Sanchore, District
Jalore.

----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Principal Secretary,
Treasury & Accounts, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Directorate, Treasury & Accounts, Through the Director,

Directorate, Treasury & Accounts, Government of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.

3. The Finance Department Through the Principal Secretary,

Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission Through the
Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer.
----Respondents

Along With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10731/2017
Priyanka Sharma dauther of Mahesh Kumar Sharma, aged about
33 years, resident of Plot No.2, Tilak Nagar III, Behind Bhadwasia
School, Bhadwasia, Tehsil and District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, through Secretary,
Ajmer.
----Respondents
 (2 of 20)
[CW-7239/2017]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10732/2017

Pooja Bhati dauther of Rajendra Singh Bhati, age about 27 years,
resident of Bhation Ka Bas, Magra Punjala, Mandore, Tehsil and
District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, through Secretary,
Ajmer.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Saluja
Mr. Manish Shishodia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, AAG with Mr. Vikas
Choudhary
Mr. Rajesh Punia
Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, PP
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
18/12/2017

1. This writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India have been preferred, in sum and substance, with the

following prayers and for the sake of convenience, the prayer

clauses are being taken from the leading case being S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.7239/2017.

“I. The respondents may kindly be directed to

provide 12.5% reservations to the petitioners for
appointment to the post of Junior Accountant under
Rules of 1963.

II. That it may be directed Rule 6(3) of the Rules of

1963 will include in itself the employes of Nigam
also, for the purpose of 12.5% reservation being
 (3 of 20)
[CW-7239/2017]

provided.

III. That the respondents may also kindly be

granted relief in consonance with the facts stated
and the grounds taken in the writ petition.

IV. Writ petition filed by the petitioners may also

kindly be allowed with costs.”

2. The petitioners are working on the post of Commercial

Assistant-I (UDC) and Commercial Assistant-II (LDC) in the

Jodhpur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. (herein after referred to as

‘Nigam’).

3. The bone of contention is that 12.5% persons which

are reserved for the Ministerial employees by the RPSC for filling

up the posts of Junior Accountant in the Accounts and Treasury

Department arising out of advertisement dated 18.09.2013. Out of

3491 posts of Junior Accountants, 437 posts are reserved for

Ministerial employees by way of horizontal reservation.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is

that the Commercial Assistant-I (UDC) and Commercial Assistant-

II (LDC) are regularly selected employees of the Nigam and are

entitled for the benefit of 12.5% reservation in pursuance to the

advertisement dated 18.09.2013 for the post of Junior Accountant

particularly for the 12.5% posts which are 437 in number,

reserved for the Ministerial employees.

5. The reservation is provided under the Rajasthan

Subordinate Accounts Service Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to

as the Rules of 1963), the Rule 6 of the Rules of 1963 which reads
 (4 of 20)
[CW-7239/2017]

as under:

6. 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.]”

6. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out

that Sub-Rule (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.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners have stated that the

Department of Energy gave birth to the Nigam and for the

purpose of streamlining reforms, the autonomy was given to the

 (5 of 20)
[CW-7239/2017]

Nigam but the complete control, financial as well as administrative

remained with the State Government.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that

the reservation of 12.5% posts is being denied only on account of

the fact that technically the Nigam is not a Department of the

Government and thus, cannot be included in the purview of 12.5%

reservation.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners have shown the

Annexure 21, which is reproduced as follows:

Jodhpur
Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.
(Rajasthan Government Undertaking)
New Power House, Jodhpur – 342003
Tel No.0291-2748970: Fax No.0291-5106121

No.JdVVNL/MD/Secy.(Admn.)/Ju/S.Estt/F/ /00.21 D/ 3.5.11

ORDER
In pursuance to the approval of the State Government conveyed by the
Energy Department vide letter No.F.4(23)Energy/2010 dated 29.03.2011 &
29.04.2011 and approval of the Board of Directors in its 176 th meeting held on
28th April, 2011, the following new posts are hereby created in the year 2011-
12 and 2012-13:-

S.No. Name of Post No. of post Total

2011- 2012-13
12

1 SE 02 - 02

2 XEN 08 02 10

3 AEN-FM-ACOS 48 12 60

4 AEN (II) 11 03 14

5 JEN 86 87 173

6 PO 02 - 02

7 APO 02 - 02

8 LA 05 01 06

9 AO 02 - 02

10 AAO - - -
 (6 of 20)
[CW-7239/2017]

11 Account - ARO 30 08 38

12 Jr. Accountant 06 02 08

13 Stock Verifier 03 01 04

14 Comml. Asst. I (UDC) 93 23 116

15 Comml. Asst. II (LDC) 168 42 210

16 Statistician 02 - 02

17 OS 02 - 02

18 PA 02 - 02

19 Steno Gr-I - - -

20 Steno Gr-II 02 - 02

21 Data Entry Operator 116 117 233

22 Tech. Helper 798 798 1596

23 Total 1388 1096 2484

10. On bare reading of Annexure 21, which has been

reproduced above clearly reflect that the State Government

through its Energy Department is creating the posts of

Commercial Assistant-I (UDC) and Commercial Assistant-II (LDC)

which are at serial no.14 & 15 of the aforementioned order dated

03.05.2011.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners have further pointed

out from the Annexure-20, that under the aegis of Energy

Department, the Sampark Portal of Government of Rajasthan is

redressing the complaints of the concerned Nigam.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioners have further pointed

out Annexure 19, wherein the amendment in the Ministerial Staff

Regulations, 1962 for Commercial Assistant-I (UDC) and

Commercial Assistant-II (LDC), which reads as follows:

“(B) Amendments in Ministerial Staff

Regulations 1962 (For Comm. Asstt.-I/II):
 (7 of 20)
[CW-7239/2017]

(a) In Regulation No.5(1), the word “Commercial

Assistant-I & Commercial Assistant-II” be
inserted at Sr.No.(xvii) & (xviii) respectively.

(b) In Regulation No.5(2) at Sr. No.(xiv) & (xv) be

inserted that “the post of Commercial Assistant-
I & Commercial Assistant-II respectively will
form a separate cadre and controlled by Chief
Personal Officer.”

(c) In Regulation No.6(1) at Sr. No.(xiii & xiv) be

inserted that “all posts of Commercial Assistant-I
& Commercial Assistant-II respectively shall be
filled up by direct recruitment from open market.”

(d) In Regulation 7(A)(ii), the word “Commercial

Assistant-I/II” also be inserted.

(e) In Regulation No.10 an additional sub-regulation

No.10(12) be inserted that “a candidate for
appointment to the post of Commercial
Assistant-I & Commercial Assistant-II must
have acquired qualification of graduation in any
discipline of an University established by Law in
India with minimum 60% marks, 5% relaxation in
marks shall be admissible to candidates of reserved
categories.”

(f) In Regulation No.20, a new sub-clause 20(B) be

inserted that “the inter-se-seniority of Commercial
Assistant-I & Commercial Assistant-II,
appointed by one single order or different order of
the same date, shall be determined according to
their merit of recruitment”.

(g) In Schedule-I under Regulation 3(a) and 24, the

word “Commercial Assistant-I & Commercial
Assistant-II”, be inserted as under:

Sr.No. Name of Post Pay Band Appointing

Authority
16. Commercial Assistant-I 5200-20200 Chief Personnel
GP-2400 Officer
17. Commercial Assistant-II 5200-20200 Chief Personnel
GP-1900 Officer
 (8 of 20)
[CW-7239/2017]

13. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also pointed

out from Annexure-17, which is a letter written by the Nigam to

the Department of Personnel seeking 12.5% reservation in the

aforementioned seats treating their employees to be at par with

the ministerial employees of the Departments of the Government

of Rajasthan.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also pointed

out from the Annexure-16, the reform guidelines issued by the

State of Rajasthan considering the Nigam as a part and parcel of

the reformative mechanism.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner have also pointed out

Annexure-14, which is a Gazette notification dated 25.05.2016 for

the power reforms involving the Nigam issued by the Government

of Rajasthan.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also shown from

Annexure 15 dated 08.06.2016, whereby the RESMA Act, 1970

has been made applicable upon the employees of the respondents,

at par with the government employees.

17. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also shown

from the Annexure-8, that the shares of Nigam are 100% owned

by the State of Rajasthan. It is also pointed out that the Web

Directory of Government of Rajasthan which includes the Energy

Portal includes the functionaries of the Nigam.

18. Learned counsel for the respondents have vehemently

opposed the submissions stating that it will be opening of flood

 (9 of 20)
[CW-7239/2017]

gates, if the ministerial staff of the Nigam are permitted to be

included in the purview of reservation of 12.5% for the ministerial

staff for the Departments of Government of Rajasthan.

19. Learned 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%.

20. Learned counsel for the respondents have further

pointed out that the Nigam 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.

21. Learned counsel for the respondents have also pointed

out that the legislative intention of providing 12.5% posts to the

Junior Accountants 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

petitioners are neither governed by Rajasthan Secretariat

Ministerial service rules 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

 (10 of 20)
[CW-7239/2017]

19 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951.

22. Learned counsel for the respondents have further

pointed out that the Nigam is a company formed under the

Companies Act and is thus, 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.

23. Learned counsel for the respondents have also pointed

out that the electricity companies were established by the

notification dated 18.01.2002 and according to the same, the

State Government has already transferred all assets and liabilities

to the concerned Boards and therefore, the employees of such

departments cannot be equated with the employees of State

Government.

24. Learned counsel for the respondents have also pointed

out at the precedent law settled by the Hon’ble Division Bench of

this Court in the matter of Dhirendra Sharma Vs. State of

Rajasthan D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5574/1992, in which

the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has held that the

compassionate appointment rules of the State shall not be

applicable on the Rajasthan State Electricity Board and other

Corporations even when such bodies fall within the definition of

State for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

25. Learned counsel for the respondents have also relied

 (11 of 20)
[CW-7239/2017]

upon the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur Bench

in the matter of Vinay Mohan Kiradoo Vs. Rajasthan Public

Service Commission (S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.16720/2016). The relevant portion of the judgment read as

under:

“It may be relevant to note that under proviso

(iii) of R.6 of the Rules, 1963, 12½% of posts Junior
Accountant, to be filled in by direct recruitment,
have been reserved for being filled in from amongst
the ministerial staff of all the departments of the
Government who are holding a substantive post in
the cadre and has to be a member of the Rajasthan
Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules,1999 or
Rajasthan Secretariat Ministerial Service Rules,
1970.

The present petitioners as alleged that they are

ministerial employees but while filling the on-line
application there are separate Cls.(10) & (11), of
which reference has been made, the candidate has
to indicate that he intends to appear as a ministerial
employee/non-gazetted employee or as a
Government Service/ Panchayati Raj/Public Sector
employee for participation in the selection process
but indisputably despite the facility being available
for availing the benefit of reservation of 12½%, as
contemplated proviso (iii) to R.6 of the Rules, 1963,
each of them failed to indicate that he is a
ministerial employee in the department of the
Government holding the post in substantively
capacity.

It may be noticed that against 437 vacancies of

Junior Accountant reserved for ministerial
employees, in all 3070 candidates submitted their
on-line application and participated in the selection
process against 12½% quota reserved for
ministerial staff of the departments of Government.

In the writ petition from which the facts have

been noticed – S.B.Civil Writ Petition
No.16010/2016 [Ramavtar Gupta Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Anr.], there is no averment in the writ
petition as to when the petitioner was appointed as
Clerk Gr.II and whether he is still a member of the
Rules, 1999. Same is the case in another writ
petition – S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 16720/2016
 (12 of 20)
[CW-7239/2017]

[Vinay Mohan Kiradoo Vs. RPSC & Ors.], he worked

as Lower Division Clerk in the office of District &
Sessions Judge, Bikaner and indisputably he is not a
member of the Rules, 1999 and employees of
ministerial cadre in the District Courts are not the
employees working in the departments of the
Government entitled to participate against 12½%
quota reserved for ministerial employees.

Leave apart, the factual matrix from which the

facts have been noticed by this court, either of the
petitioner despite an opportunity being afforded
failed to indicate in their on-line application that he
intends to appear as a ministerial employee availing
12½% quota reserved of Junior Accountant for
them, in reference to which the selection process
was initiated by the Commission. “

26. Learned counsel for the petitioners however refuted the

applicability of the judgment of Dhirendra Sharma (supra), the

Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1996 have totally different

purport altogether and have also distinguished the judgment of

Vinay Mohan Kiradoo (supra) as it is only dealing with the

category of the employees who have filled there options in the

concerned forms.

27. Learned counsel for the petitioner further points out

that from the notification dated 18.01.2002 issued by the

Government of Rajasthan, Energy Department states that the

employment under the Central Government or under the State

Government was to include employment under any local or any

other authority then the territory of India to the control of Central

Government or State Government or under any corporation of

society owned or controlled by the Government.

28. Learned counsel for the petitioners have further pointed

 (13 of 20)
[CW-7239/2017]

out the Page 23 of the petition which is the appointment order of

the present petitioner made by the Rajasthan Vidyut Vitaran

Nigam limited (a Government of Rajasthan undertaking) dated

23.10.2012. As per learned counsel for the petitioners, the

appointment order makes it amply clear that the dominating role

of Rajasthan Government was the same as it was for the other

departments and virtually the divide is on technical grounds

otherwise the respondents fall under the same domain as that of

the any other department of State of Rajasthan.

29. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted

that the reply of the respondents is merely a document so as to

deprive the petitioners from their legal rights which include special

preference for discharging the direct public duties as direct

employees of the State.

30. Learned counsel for the petitioners have 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.
 (14 of 20)
[CW-7239/2017]

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
 (15 of 20)
[CW-7239/2017]

‘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 – IAL] A adjective. 1
Pertaining to the office, function, or
character of a minister of religion.

2 Pertaining to or entrusted with the

execution of the law or the commands of a
superiors.

3 Subsidiary or instrumental in achieving

a purpose etc.

4 Of or pertaining to a Minister of State

or a government department; supporting
the Government against the Opposition.”

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>.”

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
Government”. 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
 (16 of 20)
[CW-7239/2017]

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
substantively”.

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 State-

respondents 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.”

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.

31. 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

 (17 of 20)
[CW-7239/2017]

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 petitioners have been

appointed with the Nigam, 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 – II (LDC) are being sanctioned by the

respondents.

32. This Court has also observed that the appointment

orders contain the nomenclature of Jodhpur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam

Limited as a Government of Rajasthan undertaking and the

reflections are amply clear. This Court also finds that the redressal

mechanism of the Energy Department includes the present

corporations and for all administrative and other purposes, the

 (18 of 20)
[CW-7239/2017]

corporation has been included as a limb of the Energy

Department.

33. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioners have

already qualified on merits and the only reluctance on the part of

the respondents was to administer the 12.5% reservation

available to the ministerial staff for the Department of

Government of Rajasthan upon the petitioners.

34. Though, it is true that the separate corporation 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 Nigam 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 Nigam as they for the all practical

purposes are discharging public duties as the employees of any of

the Department of State Government.

35. 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

 (19 of 20)
[CW-7239/2017]

discharged by the Nigam.

36. This Court has noticed that on all occasions, the

Government of Rajasthan has reflected its Energy Department to

be in control of the corporation 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 where the Commercial Assistant -I (UDC) and

Commercial Assistant – II (UDC) of the Nigam which admittedly in

Annexure 21, also reflects as Rajasthan Government undertaking.

37. Thus, this Court finds that the Nigam 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 Jodhpur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. 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.

38. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussions,

the present writ petitions are allowed and the respondents are

directed to give 12.5% reservation to the petitioners for the

appointment to the post of Junior Accountant under the Rules of

 (20 of 20)
[CW-7239/2017]

1963 treating the Nigam 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 petitioners from

being treated as Ministerial staff of the Department of Government

of Rajasthan shall have no effect in the present recruitment and

the petitioners shall be considered in 12.5% seats reserved for

ministerial employees in Department of State on their own merits.

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J.

zeeshan/