Manish Kumar Soni And Ors. vs. State Of Rajasthan And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the amended guidelines requiring e-Mitra Kiosk Operators to pass pre and main examinations were a policy decision taken by the appropriate authority with the intention of improving service delivery. The Court found no merit in the petitioners' contention that the guidelines were arbitrary or bad in law. It relied on the Supreme Court's pronouncements in Narmada Bachao Andolan vs. Union of India & Ors., emphasizing that courts have limited jurisdiction to interfere with policy decisions unless they violate constitutional provisions, statutory provisions, or suffer from malafides. Since the petitioners did not challenge the authority to amend the guidelines, allege malafides, or point to any statutory violation, the Court found no grounds to interfere. The writ petition was dismissed in limine, and the stay petition was also dismissed.

Facts

The petitioners, operating e-Mitra Kiosks in District Pali since 2012 under agreements with Local Service Providers (LSPs), filed a writ petition challenging amended guidelines issued on December 5, 2017, by RajCOMP Info Services Ltd. These amendments mandated e-Mitra Kiosk Operators to appear in pre and main examinations to continue their operations. The petitioners argued that this requirement was arbitrary, illegal, and sought to be applied retrospectively to them, who had gained expertise over several years. They contended that they were fulfilling all qualifications as per earlier guidelines and were aggrieved by the new examination mandate.

Key Issues

1. Whether the amended guidelines requiring e-Mitra Kiosk Operators to pass pre and main examinations, issued by RajCOMP Info Services Ltd., are arbitrary and illegal, particularly when applied to existing operators who have been operating since 2012? (Question of law and fact, concerning the arbitrary application of new selection criteria). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that the new examination requirement is arbitrary and bad in law, especially since it is being applied retrospectively to operators who have been running e-Mitra centres since 2012 and have acquired significant expertise. They contended that forcing them to appear for examinations is an unreasonable imposition. Revenue/State's Arguments: The respondents did not file any specific arguments noted in the judgment, but the Court's reasoning implies that the amendment was a policy decision taken to improve service delivery. The Court noted that the petitioners had not challenged the authority of the respondents to amend the guidelines, nor had they alleged malafides or violation of any statute.