Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1723 (RAJ)

Mahesh Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

2005-07-07

R.P.VYAS

body2005
Judgment R.P. Vyas, J.-Mr. S.K. Vyas appears for the respondents. Service is complete. 2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the respondents be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioners for the purpose of direct recruitment of the post of Teacher Grade III in pursuance of the advertisement issued in the year 1998 and in light of the Judgment rendered by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Kailash Chandra Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., by way of preparing a fresh merit list excluding the bonus marks. Accordingly, on being found suitable in the merit list, petitioners may kindly be provided appointments on and from the date, the persons lower in merit than the petitioner have been offered appointment after preparing afresh a merit list in terms of the Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court, the petitioners be offered appointment in their place, with all consequential benefits. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are duly qualified and eligible for being appointed as Teacher Grade III. All of them are having either BSTC Certificate and/or the B.Ed. Degree. 4. The Zila Parishad, Barmer, Jaisalmer and Churu published advertisements in the year 1998 for the purposes of direct recruitment to the post of Teacher Grade III. In the advertisement the formula for preparing the merit list was laid down, by which besides the number for academic qualification i.e. Secondary, Higher Secondary and B.Ed./STC, 10 bonus marks for the residents of such District; 05 bonus marks for the candidates belonging to rural area and 10 bonus marks for State, were provided. All the petitioners were fully qualified and eligible, applied pursuant to the said advertisements for the purpose of direct recruitment to the post of Teacher Grade III, in the prescribed proforma, within stipulated time period. 5. Thereafter, a merit list was prepared after including the bonus marks as provided hereinabove. Accordingly, the last candidate in the merit list secured very high marks but the petitioners were having lessor marks than the last candidate in the merit list and, therefore, they were not provided the appointment. 6. It has also been averred in the writ petition that a controversy was raised by some of the applicants that whether the candidates can be awarded the bonus marks on the basis of their place of residence. 6. It has also been averred in the writ petition that a controversy was raised by some of the applicants that whether the candidates can be awarded the bonus marks on the basis of their place of residence. However, ultimately, the matter went to the Honble Supreme Court of India in case Civil Appeal No. 4417/2002 (Kailash Chandra Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), in which it was held that award of such bonus marks is not permissible and further direction was given to issue afresh merit list in light of the Judgment in the case of (Kailash Chandra Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), as well as it was also held that the candidates appointed on or after 111.1999 or those in the select list who are yet to be appointed, on such consideration, if the candidates are found to have superior in the merit list in case the bonus marks of 10% or 5% are excluded, they should be offered appointment, if necessary by displacing the candidates appointed on or after 111.1999. 7. The petitioners further averred in the writ petition petition that in pursuance of the aforesaid Judgment , fresh merit lists were to be prepared in accordance with the directions given by the Honble Apex Court, but by taking wrong interpretation, the revised merit lists of those candidates who were placed in the main merit list was issued, whereas all the candidates whose names were placed in the select list should have been included and thereafter, a fresh merit list was required to be issued. But by not doing so, again the petitioners were deprived to get their legitimate chance to be considered after excluding the bonus marks. The effect of preparing revised merit list by taking wrong interpretation, the candidates having lesser marks than to the petitioners, have been considered and provided appointment, whereas after excluding the bonus marks, the petitioners came in the merit and are liable to be considered for the purpose of recruitment to the post of Teacher Grade III in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement. 8. Despite the aforesaid judicial pronouncement, the respective Zila Parishad, have neither considered the candidature of the petitioners nor offered the appointments being higher meritorious than to the last candidate after preparing a fresh merit list by way of excluding the 10+5 bonus marks. 9. 8. Despite the aforesaid judicial pronouncement, the respective Zila Parishad, have neither considered the candidature of the petitioners nor offered the appointments being higher meritorious than to the last candidate after preparing a fresh merit list by way of excluding the 10+5 bonus marks. 9. It has also been averred in the writ petition that when the appointments to the petitioners were denied on a wholly wrong premises and the persons less meritorious than the petitioners were given appointment, some of the petitioners submitted a representation to the Government and requested that they may also be given appointment as Teacher Grade-III in view of the judicial pronouncement of the Honble Supreme Court and further apprised them that they were also the respondents before the Honble Supreme Court of India. 10. It has also further averred in the writ petition that a meeting was held by the District Establishment Committee, Zila Parishad, Pali in which it was decided that despite passing the verdict by the Honble Supreme Court of India, a fresh merit list has not been prepared and candidature of the remaining candidates has not been considered against the remaining unfilled vacancies in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement. Accordingly, their candidature is required to be considered and on found suitable, they may be given appointment. 11. It has further averred in the petition that the candidature of petitioner has not been considered in light of the verdict given by the Honble Supreme Court of India and they have not been offered appointments. 12. It has also further averred that recently this Honble Court has also given a verdict vide order dated 08.04.2003 in case of Sunita Dadhich vs. State & Ors. alongwith other 25 writ petitions, in which it has been directed to the respondents to accept and consider the representation of any of the candidate who submits his representation without there being any separate order for the candidate himself and thereafter, prepare a complete merit list a fresh following the directions already issued in the Judgment rendered by the Honble Supreme Court of India in Kailash Chandra Sharmas case and further it was made clear that the respondents shall complete the process within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. 13. 13. As stated above, some of the petitioners also submitted a representation and prayed for their consideration however, nothing has been done till date and agony of the petitioners is being prolonged on account of the inaction on the part of the respondents. The respondents have verbally informed the candidates who contact them that they may also approach the Honble Court and get the order for considering their candidature because only those candidates are being considered by them who get orders from the Honble Court. 14. During the course of argument, it has been requested by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the respondents Zila Parishad, Barmer, Jaisalmer and Churu be directed to consider the representation of the petitioners in light of the decision rendered by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Kailash Chandra Sharma (Supra ). Since, the request of the petitioners is only for consideration of the representation, therefore, the instant petition is disposed of at this stage by giving a direction to the respondents Zila Parishad, Barmer, Jaisalmer and Churu to consider the representation of the petitioners in accordance with law only. 15. Thus, this writ petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of in the manner that the petitioners are directed to file a fresh representation within a period of 15 days from today and the respondents Zila Parishad, Barmer, Jaisalmer and Churu shall consider and decide the same either way in accordance with law within one month from the date of receipt of the said representations in light of the decision rendered by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Kailash Chandra Shrma (Supra ). If it is found that the petitioners are entitled for any relief in accordance with law, then the same may be given to the petitioners and if the petitioners are not found entitled to the relief sought for, then a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law may be passed.