State of Rajasthan v. Umesh Jangid — 1997 DIGILAW 937 (RAJ)

Honble ARORA, J.–This appeal and the appeals mentioned in the Schedule raise a common controversy relating to grant of bonus marks to the sportsmen in the matter of employment to Physical Teachers in the Education Department and, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. For adjudication of the controversy, the facts of D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 261 of 1997 (State ofRajasthan and others vs. Umesh Jangid) are taken into consideration. (2). The Director, Primary and Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner, by a Notification invited applications for appointment of III Grade Teachers/Physical Training Instructors/Librarians/ Laboratory Assistants. The writ petitioner (respondent in the appeal) and other eligible persons, in pursuance to this Notification,applied for appointment on the post of Physical Teacher Grade III. The name of the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 53 in the Merit List. While considering his case, his participation in the Inter-University Tournaments was not taken into consideration. Since the name of the petitioner was below in the merit list, therefore, he could not be given appointment. (3). The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the denial of bonus marks to him as were granted to other persons who participated in the tournaments held by the Education Department. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed by the learned Single Judge. While allowing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge held that the petitioner and any other person holding the Inter-UniversitySports Certificates or any other certificate of the same level, as mentioned in the advertisement, shall be awarded the same bonus marks as are being awarded to other candidates who have obtained such certificate from the Education Department and in case they are placed in merit by competing the others, they shall be considered and if selected, shall be offered the job as per the merit list prepared.Likewise, in the cases referred in the Schedule, the similar orders were passed by the learned Single Judge. It is against these judgments that the appellants have preferred this appeal and the appeals mentioned in the Schedule. (4). It is against these judgments that the appellants have preferred this appeal and the appeals mentioned in the Schedule. (4). It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that it is not in the domain of the aspiring candidates to equate games as per their choice and itis for the concerned authorities to determine, decide and recognise a particular level of tournament for being awarded the bonus marks and such decisions are ordinarily respected at the face value unless they are found to be perverse or arbitrary; the appellants, in the present cases, decided to award bonus marks for District Level, State Level and National Level Tournaments and for being eligible toget the bonus marks, a candidates has to fulfil two essential conditions, namely, (i) that he must have taken part in the competition which has been organised by the Education Department etc.; and (ii) that the authority concerned must be satisfied that such competition is either of the levels mentioned in the advertisement. Since the petitioners have not participated in any of the tournaments organised by theEducation Department, therefore, they were not entitled for getting the bonus marks and the learned Single Judge was, therefore, not justified in awarding the bonus marks also to the candidates who have participated in the tournaments not organised by the Education Department. (5). Learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioners, on the other hand,have submitted that the object of making the provision for awarding the bonus marks was to give incentive to the persons who have taken part in games and sports and participated in the tournaments; and awarding of bonus marks cannot be restricted only to the tournaments organised by the Education Department as that will be contrary to the object, for which the provision has been made. (6). We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. (7). The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the Departmental Authorities are the best Judge to determine, decide and recognise a particular level of tournament for granting the bonus marks and the Courtsshould be slow in interfering in such matters of Policy Decision. (7). The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the Departmental Authorities are the best Judge to determine, decide and recognise a particular level of tournament for granting the bonus marks and the Courtsshould be slow in interfering in such matters of Policy Decision. In : Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Sheth and others (1) the Supreme Court held that ``the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own view as to what is best, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated bythe professional-man possessing the technical expertise and this experience of day to day working of an institution and department controlling them. (8). In: Jawaharlal Nehru University Students Union vs. Jawaharlal Nehru University and another (2) the Apex Court held that ``it is not for this Court to venture to pronounce upon the question so purely academic in nature. (9). In : State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. D.K. Singh and others (3) the Supreme Court held that ``the High Court should not interfere with matters of academic nature and left it to the discretion of the University to decide when the Course of study should commence. (10). In : Rajendra Prasad Mathur vs. Karnataka University and another (4) the Supreme Court reiterated its stand taken earlier that ``it is for each University to decide the question of equivalence of examination and it would not be right for the Supreme Court to sit in judgment over the decision of the University because it is not a matter, on which the Courts possess any expertise. (11). We are aware of the fact that in the academic matters, the Court do not possess any expertise and these matters are to be left with the Education Authorities for consideration. But the present are not the cases where the matters are of an academic nature. The provision has been made in the Rules for giving bonus marks to the sportsmen who have participated in the various tournaments of Dis-trict Level, State Level or National Level in order to compare the performance of various candidates who, in pursuance to the Notification, applied for giving appointment on the post of Physical Teacher Grade III. The provision has been made in the Rules for giving bonus marks to the sportsmen who have participated in the various tournaments of Dis-trict Level, State Level or National Level in order to compare the performance of various candidates who, in pursuance to the Notification, applied for giving appointment on the post of Physical Teacher Grade III. The provision for granting the bonus marks has to be considered and interpreted in the light: whether any restriction can be placed by the authority for restricting the scope of granting thebonus marks only to the tournaments held by the Education Department or it is applicable to the other tournaments of District Level, State Level or National Level organised by the Universities or other Sports Board etc. The guiding factor for interpreting these provisions is the eminence of the participants in sports and their academic excellence. For adjudging the compara-tive merit, though academic excellence is the main criteria but provision for giving bonus marks to the participant in various games/tournaments of District, State and National Level tournament for appointment on the post of Physical Teacher Grade II & III has, also, been made. There is a rational behind giving bonus marks to the Physical Education Teachers. Granting the bonus marks to the sports-men, whotook part in the tournaments, is in the public interest of promotion of sports and gives incentive to the sports-men. It has been held by the Supreme Court in: Khalid Hussain (minor) vs. Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Health Department, Madras and others (5) that ``reservation of seats in professional course for sportsman was not irrational and arbitrary but has reasonable nexus tothe object sought to be achieved in public interest, namely, promotion of sports. (12). In the Guidelines (Annexure.R.5) issued by the Director, Primary & Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner, it has, also, been stated that the provisions have been made for giving bonus marks to Physical Education Teachers (P.T.I.) taking into consideration the importance of sports and games in their tea-ching activities. With this object in mind, in the Notification inviting applications, the following provision for granting bonus marks was made :- Nature of Competition Bonus marks for P.T.I., Gr.II & III Bonus marks for other teachers District Level Tournaments 5 1 State Level Tournaments 10 3 National Level Tournaments 15 5 (13). With this object in mind, in the Notification inviting applications, the following provision for granting bonus marks was made :- Nature of Competition Bonus marks for P.T.I., Gr.II & III Bonus marks for other teachers District Level Tournaments 5 1 State Level Tournaments 10 3 National Level Tournaments 15 5 (13). The question, which requires consideration in the present case, therefore, is : whether the grant of bonus marks can be restricted to the participants to the tournaments organised by the Education Department only, or it can be exten-ded to all the tournaments of District Level, State Level or National Level? When a provision has been made in order to encourage sports-men by providing bonus marks in the matter of employment then that cannot be restricted only to the tournaments held by the Education Department. There is no rational in restricting the bonus marks only to such participants. Eminence in the sports is the main cri-teria for the grant of bonus marks. Though the Notification making provision for the grant of bonus marks to the other participants is silent and states only for the tournaments organised by the Education Department, but there is no rational behind the insistance to grant bonus marks only on the certificates issued by the Education Department in relation to the tournaments organised by the Education Department because that will result in not granting bonus marks to the persons who have participated in the University-Level-Tournaments and other tournaments of the same level. (14). It is true that the functions of the Courts are not to legislate but to interpret a provision as is contained and for interpreting or construing a provision, the Court has to see the true intention of the framers and the circumstances in which the provision has been made. The present provision has been made to effectuate the policy to provide bonus marks to the sports-men who have taken part in the DistrictLevel, State Level or National Level Tournaments. When a provision has been made for giving incentive to the sportsmen by giving bonus marks then no discrimination can be made between the sportsman holding a certificate issued by the Education Department or by any other authority though they were of District Level, State Level or National Level. No valid difference can be made between the tournaments orga-nised by the Education Department and by the Unviersity or by the Sports Board/Authority etc. No valid difference can be made between the tournaments orga-nised by the Education Department and by the Unviersity or by the Sports Board/Authority etc. The restriction of granting bonus marks to the persons who participated in the tournaments organised by the Education Department, thus, results in inequality and discrimination and there is no reasonable basis for making such a discrimination. The restriction, if any, made by this provision, is in contradi-ction of the apparent purpose of the provision which appears to be not intended and the Court can, therefore, put a construction by extending the provision to all the District Level, State Level or National Level tournaments which is in consonance with the object fo the provision. (15). Whether such type of construction can be given to the provisions overwhich the provisions are silent, came-up for consideration before the Supreme Court in: Tirath Singh vs. Bachittar Singh and Others (6) and the Supreme Court held that ``where the language of a statute, in its ordinary meaning and grammatical construction, leads to a manifest contradiction of the apparent purpose of the enactment, or to some inconvenience or absurdity, hardship or injustice, presuma-bly not intended, a construction may be put upon it which modifies the meaning of the words and even the structure of the sentence. It has, also been held by the Apex Court in : South Asia Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sarup Singh and others (7) that ``it is trite saying that the object of interpreting a statute is to ascertain the intention of the Legislature enacting it. (16). The provision for giving bonus marks in the case of appointments to the Physical Education Teachers has been made for promotion of the sports and in order to give incentive to various sportsmen. The grant of bonus marks to the participants in the District Level, State Level or National Level Tournaments, therefore, cannot be restricted to the tournaments held by the Education Departmentalone, but it is applicable to all District Level, State Level or National Level, tournaments organised by a University or Sports Board/Authority or by any other Authority recognised in this regard because restricting the bonus marks only to the tournaments organised by the Education Department is against the object of the provision itself. (17). The Education Department itself, while granting admission to the Physical Training Course, has recognised the Inter- University Tournaments as equivalent to National Level Tournaments. (17). The Education Department itself, while granting admission to the Physical Training Course, has recognised the Inter- University Tournaments as equivalent to National Level Tournaments. Rule 11 of the Admission Rules, which gives recognition to the various tournaments reads as under :– 1. National Level Tournaments. (a) Inter-Zone University/Inter University tournaments. (b) National Level School Tournaments organised by SGFI. (c) Federal National Level Tournaments organised by National Federation. 2. State Level Tournaments :- (a) Inter-college tournaments. (b) State Level School tournaments. (c) State Level Federal Tournaments organised by State Federation. 3. District Level Tournaments :- (a) University Inter-Faculties Tournaments. (b) District School Level Tournaments (organised by the District Education Officer). (c) Federal District Level Tournaments (organised by the District Sports Federation). (18). The appellants, therefore, cannot be allowed to lay down two different criteria and restrict the bonus marks to the participants in the tournaments organised by the Education Department alone and the other participants are, also, entit-led for the same benefit. (19). In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality in extending this benefit to the participants of other tournaments. (20). In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the appeals men-tioned in the Schedule and the same are hereby dismissed.