Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2812 (RAJ)

Manju Budania v. State of Rajasthan

2005-10-25

R.P.VYAS

body2005
Honble VYAS, J.–The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction against the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Physical Training Instructor Grade III after granting him 15 bonus marks for the sports certificate (Annex. 6). (2). The brief facts of the case are that an advertisement was issued by the respondents on 28.7.2003 inviting applications for the post of Physical Training Instructor. The petitioner being eligible for appointment on the said post, applied for the same. (3). It has further been averred by the petitioner in the writ petition that in the advertisement a provision was made for awarding 15 bonus marks for participation in the National Level Tournament. The petitioner participated in All India Inter University Games conducted by the Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra. However, he has not been granted 15 bonus marks. (4). The petitioner also averred that the respondents issued a provisions list on 18.8.2003 in which the name of the petitioner was not shown and the petitioner was not granted 15 bonus marks. When the petitioner enquired from the office of the respondent No. 3 she was informed that since she has done her B.P. Ed. from outside the State and the certificate (Annex. 6) was not countersigned by the Head of the Institution, therefore, he has not been awarded 15 bonus marks. (5). The petitioner further averred that she thereafter approached the concerned authority and submitted the certificate duly countersigned by the Head of the Institution and submitted the same on 23.8.2003 i.e. last date of submission of objection. (6). The controversy involved in the present writ petition is that the sports certificate (Annex. 6) submitted by the petitioner along with the application form was equivalent to national level certificate, but the respondents have not awarded any bonus marks on the ground that the same was not countersigned by the Head of the Institution and he has obtained the training in Physical Education from outside the State of Rajasthan, therefore, he is not entitled to get 15 bonus marks. (7). Reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents, in which it has been stated that the State Government has issued a circular dated 23.1.2004 in which it was clarified that the candidates who have obtained the B.P. Ed. degree from outside the State are also entitled to get bonus marks. (7). Reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents, in which it has been stated that the State Government has issued a circular dated 23.1.2004 in which it was clarified that the candidates who have obtained the B.P. Ed. degree from outside the State are also entitled to get bonus marks. Accordingly, in compliance of directions of this Honble Court in the case of Ashish Saxena dated 9.3.2004 and the circular dated 23.1.2004, the fresh merit list was prepared. (8). It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the State Government has issued the guidelines on 31.7.2003, which provides that sports certificate should be verified by the Head of the Institution where the student was studying and participated in the tournament while studying there. The certificate produced by the petitioner has not been verified by the Head of the Institution where the petitioner was studying and participated in the tournament. Therefore, the petitioner has not been granted 15 bonus marks. (9). It has further been submitted that the petitioner submitted the State Level Certificate which was verified by the Head of the Institute for which he has been granted 10 bonus marks as per Rules. The petitioner cannot be permitted to add the certificate after submission of application form. As per the terms of the advertisement all the certificates must be countersigned by the Head of the Institution where the candidates were studying at the relevant time and the certificate were obtained while studying in that institution. In the present case the petitioner annexed the State Level Certificate along with the application form for which he has been granted 10 bonus marks. It is further relevant to mention here that till the last date of submission of application form, the petitioner did not produce the National Level Certificate duly verified by the Head of the Institute and hence, he is not entitled to get 15 bonus marks. (10). Heard the learned counsel for the parties. (11). During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in the instant case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Ashish Saxena vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (10). Heard the learned counsel for the parties. (11). During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in the instant case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Ashish Saxena vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5207/2003) in so far as the writ petition relates to denial of bonus marks on account of the fact that the petitioner obtained the Degree of B.P.Ed. From outside the State of Rajasthan. The respondents in their reply have also agreed that the petitioner has been granted 10 bonus marks on account of State Level Certificate produced by the petitioner alongwith the application form. Therefore, the controversy regarding denial of bonus marks on account of the fact that degree of B.P.Ed. was obtained from outside the State of Rajasthan is no more res inteqra. (12). The only question which requires consideration in the writ petition is that whether the petitioner is entitled to get 15 bonus marks in absence of counter signature on the certificate (Annex. 6). (13). The certificate which is produced by the petitioner emanates from the University of Rajasthan certifying that petitioner represented the University of Rajasthan as a member of the Hockey Team in Inter University Hockey (women) Tournament held at Kurukshetra in the year 2000. Thus, it is not in dispute that the petitioner participated in Inter University Tournament which is a National Level Tournament. (14). This certificate qualifies the petitioner to be treated as a Sportsman who has participated in National Level Tournament. The testimonial (Certificate Annex. 6) is emanating from the competent authority. If the certificate issued by the University which the petitioner represented is not acceptable, who else can better certify the participation of a University student about her being a member of University team. However, merely the fact that the petitioners certificate has not been countersigned by some officials (Head of the Institution) cannot come in the way to grant 15 bonus marks. The certificate certifying the petitioner to be a sportsman having participated at the National Level Tournament which emanates from University of Rajasthan itself shows that she has represented as a member of University team in Inter University Tournament. There is no doubt about genuineness of the certificate issued by the authorities. The certificate certifying the petitioner to be a sportsman having participated at the National Level Tournament which emanates from University of Rajasthan itself shows that she has represented as a member of University team in Inter University Tournament. There is no doubt about genuineness of the certificate issued by the authorities. In these circumstances, the exclusion of the petitioners certificates and not awarding the bonus marks which otherwise, she was entitled to be awarded as having participated in the sports of National Level, results in denying equal opportunity in the matter of giving appointment on the basis of yard-sticks provided by the respondents themselves. (15). Similar view has been taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Manish Bisawa vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 193/2004) decided on 19.4.2004. (16). Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Physical Training Instructor Grade III after granting 15 bonus marks on the basis of Certificate (Annex. 6) and in case after granting 15 bonus marks, if any person who stood lower in merit than the petitioner, has been offered appointment, then the case of the petitioner be also considered for appointment from the date the person less meritorious to him has been given appointment. On his appointment, the petitioner shall not be entitled for the emoluments of the post for the past, however, she will be entitled to claim seniority over the persons who were lower in merit, but have been offered appointment prior to her. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of four months from today. (17). With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.