Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 723 (RAJ)

Mandeep Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2004-05-06

O.P.BISHNOI, RAJESH BALIA

body2004
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The wilt petition was filed by 11 persons jointly alleging that all the 1 petitioners are having Certificates of Scout issued by the Bharat Scouts and Guides. It was submitted that the Bharat Scouts and Guides is a Society registered under the Societies' Registration Act, It provides training in Scouting and is only institution in the country, which awards fellowship certificate in Scouting and Guiding. Further assertions in the petition are that the Bharat Scouts and Guides provides three kinds of Certificates known as "Praveen", "Nipurn" and "President Award". The certificate of "Praveen" is the basic certificate in Scouting, the certificate of "Nipurn" is the Secondary Certificate in Scouting and the "President Award" is the highest award in Scouting. His Excellency the President of India grants this award to the extraordinary Rover Scouts. 3. For recruitment to the post of Senior Teacher, one bonus mark is s allowed to the scout candidates having certificate in the category of "Praveen". Three bonus marks are allowed to the Scout candidates having the certificate in the cadre of "Nipurn" and the candidates having the "President Award" are entitled to five bonus marks. While making assertion about the different certificates held by them which they have produced to before the concerned authorities. As a matter of fact, the President's Award of Petitioner No. 1 Praveen only was produced along with the copy of writ petition as an illustrative case The assertions made in this regard in the petition are that the petitioner No. 1, Praveen Kumar, Petitioner No. 2, Mandeep Singh, and Petitioner No. 3, Luv Kunj were all having "President's Award" and others were having the certificates of "Nipurn" in Scouting except petitioner No. 11, who was having the certificate of "Praveen" in Scouting. In accordance with these attainments in Scouting, the petitioners laid claim to bonus marks in determining their merit. 4. The grievance of the petitioners is that while considering their merit, the respondents have not granted bonus marks to them in respect of the respective certificates held by the petitioners in Scouting. 5. In accordance with these attainments in Scouting, the petitioners laid claim to bonus marks in determining their merit. 4. The grievance of the petitioners is that while considering their merit, the respondents have not granted bonus marks to them in respect of the respective certificates held by the petitioners in Scouting. 5. While specifically not denying the holding of certificate by the petitioners, the respondents rest contended that since the copies of certificates have not been produced along with writ petition, they were not in a position to make any comments about attainment of the petitioners in Scouting and Roving. However, the only defence, which was taken on merit, was that bonus marks are awarded only if the certificates are obtained while studying in College/University and the same are countersigned by the Head of the Institution. In the present case, the certificates produced by the petitioners have been obtained from open category and have not been signed by the Head of the Institution, hence, the petitioners are not entitled to any bonus marks. 6. In fact, this assertion in pare 8 of the reply amounts to admitting the fact that the petitioners were possessing the respective certificates, and were produced before the respondents, but they being in the open category were not treated eligible for bonus marks. 7. In the advertisement, awarding the bonus marks on account of extra-curricular activities in which the candidates might have attained some excellence, was envisaged and which provide guidelines for those candidates who had availed such proficiency. While participating in such extra-curricular activities in the school, such certificates, which have been obtained while studying in the school, must be countersigned by the Head of the Institution. However, no clarification was made about those candidates, who had participated in extra-curricular activities as an open candidate. When this anomaly was brought to the notice of the State Govt. it vide letter dated 28th January, 2004, notified that State Organisation Scout has brought to the notice of the Director Education that open candidates are not being given advantage of the bonus marks, who have attained the proficiency in the Scouting and have obtained the respective certificates and it was also brought to the notice to the Court that the circular issued by the State Govt. on 19.6.97 issuing amendment in the directions in which it was clearly stated that those candidates, who have attached the Scout/Guide Certificates along with their applications, and which have been certified by the State 1 Organisation Scout, they must be awarded bonus marks according to their category and their merits should be re- determined. 8. In view of the aforesaid direction of the State which was available on record during the course of hearing before the learned Single Judge, this s ground of denying the benefit of bonus marks was given by the State and the contention was confined to the fact that the petitioners No. 2 to 11 have not produced the copies of respective certificates alleged to have been obtained by them. 9. While allowing the writ petition and directing the respondents that the incumbent is entitled to the bonus marks, even if he has pursued the Scouting training or courses independently, these petitioners No. 2 to 11 who did not produce the copies of the respective certificates along with the writ petition to satisfy the correctness of the stand, were denied the relief. The writ petition filed on behalf of petitioners No. 2 to 11 was dismissed on this is solitary ground and the petition of Praveen Kumar, petitioner No. 1 was allowed, subject to verification of the genuineness of the certificate produced by him. 10. This led to filing of this appeal by petitioners No. 2 to 11. 11. Apparently, it appears to us that no distinction can be drawn in granting relief in a joint writ petition only because one certificate has been produced, notwithstanding the specific averments made about the respective certificate, obtained by them and attached with their applications, which fact was not disputed or denied. In fact, as noticed by us above, holding of such certificate by petitioners was in fact admitted and only ground for denying like relief as claimed by all the petitioners was that such certificates were by open candidates and not school candidates. Only the certificates obtained by school candidates are eligible for bonus marks. However, in view of this, the solitary plea was given up in the light of circular of the State Government itself. 12. In such circumstances, all the petitioners ought to have been treated alike in the matter of granting the relief. 13. Only the certificates obtained by school candidates are eligible for bonus marks. However, in view of this, the solitary plea was given up in the light of circular of the State Government itself. 12. In such circumstances, all the petitioners ought to have been treated alike in the matter of granting the relief. 13. While admitting the appeal in the presence of AAG by way of interim direction we have directed that while completing the selection process for appointment for the post in question, if the documents regarding Scout and Guide have already been presented with the respondents by the appellants, the same shall be considered before proceeding further. The aforesaid direction rules out the possibility of fresh presentation of documents with the authorities and the documents only with the authorities can entail the benefit of award of bonus marks subject to verification of their a genuineness. The relief as granted to Praveen Kumar by the learned Single Judge, cannot be denied to them. 14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the judgment under appeal to the extent of dismissing the writ petition on behalf of petitioners No. 2 to 11' is set aside and the respondents are directed to treat the case of the appellants at par with Praveen Kumar, who was petitioner No. 1 in the writ petition subject to verification of genuineness of their proficiency certificates in Scouting, which have already been presented by them before the concerned authorities. The directions be carried out within a period of three weeks from the date of service of this order or production of the certified copy of the order whichever is earlier.No costs.Appeal Allowed to Extent of Setting Aside Judgment to Extent of Dismissing Petitions of Petitioners 2-11. *******