[2026:RJ-JP:13982] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4531/2020 Manoj Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri Babulal Sharma, Aged About 50 Years, Permanent Resident Of A-175, Joshi Marg, Kalwar Road, Johtwara, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Government Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Secretary, Department Of Personal, Government Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. Joint Secretary, Personal Department (A-2), Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. Shri Bhaskar A. Sawant Ias, The Then Secretary, Department Of Personal, Government Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan Jaipur And Now Secretary, Urban Development And Housing, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 5. Chairman, Board Of Revenue, Government Of Rajasthan, Ajmer. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anoop Pareek Mr. Kshitiz Sharma Mr. Pranav Pareek Mr. Manoj Sharma, (Petitioner present in Person) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC with Mr. Yashwant Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 23/03/2026 1. The instant petition is filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- "(i) The impugned termination of order dated 19.12.2018 and order dated 05.11.2019 may be [2026:RJ-JP:13982] (2 of 7) [CW-4531/2020] quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits. (ii) That the respondents may be directed to consider Compassionate appointment of the petitioner on the post of Naib Tehsildar along with seniority with all consequential benefits. (iii) That the respondents may be directed in future to follow the procedure of appointment as prescribed in the rules of 1996 and guidelines as per which the state list be prepared and the appointment be given strictly on comparative merit as per the date of application and eligibility of dependents. (iv) Any other order or direction the Hon'ble Court may deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favor of the humble petitioners." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the petitioner himself have argued the matter, and submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Clerk on compassionate ground under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred as 'the Rules of 1996'), as amended from time to time, in place of his father, Shri Babulal Sharma, who expired on 20th June 2005 while working as Ayurvedic Doctor. The services of the petitioner was terminated on 19-12-2018. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is having educational qualifications of LLB and CA Intermediate and eligible for appointment on the post of Nayab Tehsildar / Legal Advisor / AAP or any other post, but he was appointed by the respondents on the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC). He further submits that the petitioner was directed to qualify typing test, which is an outdated practice in present times. He also submits that the service of the petitioner was terminated on the ground that the petitioner has failed to qualify the typing [2026:RJ-JP:13982] (3 of 7) [CW-4531/2020] test. He also submits that the petitioner is entitled for exemption from the typing test or alternatively entitled for opportunity to clear the typing test. 4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and they have referred order dated 04.03.2016 in SB Civil Writ Petition No.390/2016 (Rajesh Kumar Pandey Vs. State & Anr.). 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed under the Rules of 1996 and as per Rule 9 of the Rules of 1996, the petitioner was required to clear such training or departmental examination or typing test within a period of three years for entitlement for confirmation, failing which his appointment shall liable to be terminated. 7. Rule 9 of the Rules of 1996 is reproduced for ready reference:- “9. Procedural Requirement etc.- The procedural requirement for selection such as training or departmental examination or typing test shall not be insisted upon at the initial appointment. The dependants shall however, be required to clear such training or departmental examination or typing test within a period of three years for entitlement for confirmation failing which his/her appointment shall be liable to be terminated. No annual grade increments will be allowed until he/she acquires such qualifications. On acquiring such qualifications annual grade increments shall be allowed notionally from the date of appointment but no arrears shall be paid. Provided that the widow appointed under the provisions of these rules shall be exempted from passing the typing test.” [2026:RJ-JP:13982] (4 of 7) [CW-4531/2020] 8. Aforementioned Rule was considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Rajesh Kumar Pandey Vs. State & Anr. (supra) and held that if a candidate failed to clear the typing test even after several opportunities given to him, then there is no illegality in the order. 9. The material on record indicate that the petitioner has filed a DB Civil Writ Petition No. 17909/2018 to challenge validity of the Rule 9 of the Rules of 1996, which was disposed of on 27.02.2019. While deciding the writ petition, a Division Bench has observed as under:- "In the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that ever since the petitioner was appointed on the post of LDC on 03.03.2010, the type writers have become obsolete and he has been continuously working on computer and acquired proficiency in the computer work. Insistence of the respondents to qualify the typing test was wholly unjustified. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the case of one Virendra Kumar Brijwasi, in whose case the respondents vide order dated 20.12.2012 exempted requirement of qualifying type test. Learned counsel submitted that owing to the circumstances in which the petitioner was made to work on computer by the respondents, they ought to have accorded similar treatment to him. Act of the respondents is discriminatory being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Without going into the argument as to validity of Rule 6 and 9 of the Rules of 1996 and considering the fact that the petitioner had rendered services of more than 8 years as also the argument of discrimination on the basis of exemption accorded to one Virendra Kumar Brijwasi, we require the petitioner to submit a detailed representation to the Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur for according similar exemption to the petitioner on the condition of proving his proficiency in computer work to their satisfaction. [2026:RJ-JP:13982] (5 of 7) [CW-4531/2020] If eventually, the respondents are persuaded to accord exemption to the petitioner from typing test after considering his proficiency in computer work, the petitioner shall only be entitled to notional benefits and not actual benefits for the intervening period. Appropriate speaking order on the representation of the petitioner be passed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of the representation. With the aforesaid direction and observation, writ petition stands disposed of." 10. The Government of Rajasthan has preferred a D.B. Civil Review Petition No. 119/2019 and same was disposed on 27.09.2019 with the following observations:- "Be that as it may, this Court by the aforesaid judgment merely required the respondent-writ petitioner to submit a detailed representation to the Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, who was directed to consider the case of the respondent-writ petitioner for exemption at par with Virendra Kumar Brijwasi. Even though Virendra Kumar Brijwasi was appointed under the Rules of 1975 and the respondent-writ petitioner was appointed under the Rules of 1996, it makes out a case of discrimination particularly when the respondent has worked for more than 8 years. It was also observed by this Court that if eventually the review petitioners are persuaded to accord exemption to the respondent- writ petitioner from typing test after considering his proficiency in computer work, he shall only be entitled to notional benefits and not actual benefits for the intervening period upon his reinstatement. In view of above, we do not find any merit in this review petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Application No. 508/2019 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands dismissed. Application No. 1/2019 and 40474/2019 both stand disposed of." [2026:RJ-JP:13982] (6 of 7) [CW-4531/2020] 11. The material on record indicate that Om Prakash Thanvi was appointed on post of Nayab Tehsildar, (Scale 11), pursuant to decision of the Cabinet (Council of Ministers). Similarly, Kartikay Meena was appointed only after decision of the Cabinet. The petitioner has accepted appointment on the post of Clerk, accordingly he has been appointed on the post of Clerk. The appointment order (Annexure 8) clearly indicate that the appointment was made under the Rules of 1996. A representation to exempt the petitioner from qualifying typing test was considered by the DOP and vide letter dated 23.02.2015 (Annexure-15), same was turned down. The petitioner was appointed pursuant to Rules of 1996, and Rules of 1996 prescribes clearing of the typing test, therefore, the petitioner has to qualify the typing test, before confirmation. 12. The representation of the petitioner was decided by DOP on 05.11.2019, and it indicate that after appointment of petitioner, five times typing test on typewriter and eight times typing test on computer were organized. The petitioner appeared on two occasions but he could not qualify in said test. The petitioner was having opportunity to pass out qualifying test but he failed to do so. 13. The petitioner was given enough and sufficient opportunity, therefore, no case is made out for interference. However, the petitioner may submit a representation to the respondents to consider his appointment as Class-IV employee in the same manner as has been directed in case of Rajesh Kumar Pandey Vs. State & Anr. (supra) [2026:RJ-JP:13982] (7 of 7) [CW-4531/2020] 14. In view of discussion made herein above, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner is hereby dismissed with the pending applications, if any. 15. The petitioner is given a liberty to submit a representation to the respondents to consider his appointment on post of Class-IV employee. The petitioner would not be entitled for protection of pay-scale, if appointment is granted after consideration of representation by the respondents. 16. No order as to costs. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/35