Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 8882 (RAJ)

ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA v. RAJ RAJYA VIDHYUT UTPADAN NIGA

CW/5644/2001 · 2025-07-31

Anand Sharma

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:29296] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5644/2001 Ashok Kumar Sharma S/o Sita Ram Sharma, aged about 32 years, R/o Village Umra, Tehsil Data Ramgarh, District Sikar (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harsh Saraswat on behalf of Mr. Shiv Charan Gupta For Respondent(s) : None present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 31/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition seeking a direction against the respondent to grant him the benefit of his qualification of Bachelor of Engineering in Electrical and thereby re-designate his post as JEN-I. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as JEN-II on 31.05.1994, which was a post meant for diploma holders, whereas all persons possessing degree in Engineering were appointed to the post of JEN-I. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that although the petitioner had passed the final examination on the date of his appointment, yet degree certificate was not made available to him at that time. Therefore, he could not submit the [2025:RJ-JP:29296] (2 of 3) [CW-5644/2001] same before the Department at the time of his appointment and consideration. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the Circular dated 26.06.1985 issued by RSEB to show that the benefit of acquiring degree of AMIE shall be granted to the Junior Engineers appointed as diploma holders, from the date of acquiring degree. He submits that degree of AMIE and B.E. are equivalent and hence, benefit of the same ought to have been extended to the petitioner as well. 5. Despite service, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent. 6. However, in its reply affidavit, it has been contended that the respondent never advertised the vacancies for recruitment on the post of JEN-I & JEN-II. The petitioner was registered with Manpower Department and his name was sponsored by the Manpower Department, Government of Rajasthan to RSEB for his recruitment. 7. The RSEB considered candidature of the petitioner and directed him to fill out the application form along with required documents vide its letter dated 04.02.1993. Admittedly on the said date, the petitioner did not possess the degree of B.E.; hence, the respondent rightly considered him only as a diploma holder and accordingly, the post of JEN-II, vacant for diploma holder, was given to the petitioner. 8. However, there is nothing on record to clarity whether the benefit of Circular dated 26.06.1985 issued by the RSEB shall be applicable in the case of petitioner also or not. Hence, under these circumstances, this Court finds it fit to direct the petitioner [2025:RJ-JP:29296] (3 of 3) [CW-5644/2001] to make a representation before the respondent along with a copy of the aforesaid Circular dated 26.06.1985. The said representation shall be decided by the respondent within a period of two months from the date of filing of the representation. In case, the aforesaid Circular is found applicable in the case of petitioner, then all consequential benefits shall be granted to him within a further period of three months. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/21