Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2886 (RAJ)

Vijay Pal v. State of Rajasthan

2005-11-08

R.P.VYAS

body2005
Judgment R.P. Vyas, J.-The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the order dated 14.06.2002 (Annexure P/11) passed by the Respondent No. 2 may kindly be quashed and set aside qua the Respondent No. 5. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner possesses the requisite qualification for appointment on the post of Para Teacher/Shiksha Sahyogi. He applied for the post of Para Teacher/Shiksha Sahyogi in Rajeev Gandhi Swarn Jayanti Pathshala, Chak 23-BD. The Respondent No. 5 also applied for the said post. 3. It has been averred by the petitioner that the Respondent No. 5 as well as the petitioner appeared for the interview. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the Respondent No. 5 did not submit his own mark-sheet of B.Ed Examination alongwith the application form and intentionally and deliberately submitted the mark-sheet of B.Ed. of other candidate simply with a view to get the appointment. The interview was held on 20.05.2002 and before the Selection Committee also, the petitioner did not submit his own mark-sheet. The Selection Committed prepared a panel of the candidates, who appeared before the Selection Committee and pasted it on the notice board of the Gram Panchayat. The candidature of the Respondent No. 5 was rejected by the Gram Panchyat and the petitioner was selected by the Selection Committee vide resolution No. 44 dated 20.05.2002. Thereafter, the Gram Panchayat issued final select list in which the name of the petitioner was placed at serial No. 1. 4. The petitioner further averred in the writ petition that after issuance of final select list, the Respondent No. 5 himself made an application before the Gram Sabha stating that by mistake, he has attached the mark-sheet of another person and now he may be permitted to submit his own mark-sheet. 5. It has also been averred in the writ petition that the Respondent No. 5 made a complaint before the Grievance Committee. The Grievance Committee vide order dated 27.05.2002, rejected the complaint filed by the Respondent No. 5. 6. The petitioner further averred that he has been selected on the post of Shiksha Sahyogi and he was also sent for training. 7. The Grievance Committee vide order dated 27.05.2002, rejected the complaint filed by the Respondent No. 5. 6. The petitioner further averred that he has been selected on the post of Shiksha Sahyogi and he was also sent for training. 7. It has also been averred in the writ petition that the Respondent No. 5 challenged the order passed by the Gram Panchayat dated 20.05.2002 by filing a revision petition before the District Collector and the District Collector vide order dated 14.06.2002 (Annexure P/11) allowed the revision petition filed by the Respondent No. 5 and directed the Establishment Committee to take his mark-sheet on record and thereafter make selection afresh. 8. During the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 5 submitted that he has been appointed at Senior Teacher on regular basis and, therefore, he does not have any cause of action in this writ petition and he has no objection if the order passed by the Collector dated 14.06.2002 is quashed. 9. Admittedly, the Respondent No. 5 did not submit his mark-sheet of B.Ed. alongwith the application form as well as at the time of interview. Accordingly, the candidature of the Respondent No. 5 was rejected and the petitioner was selected for the post of Shiksha Sahyogi. The petitioner was also sent for training. However, on revision being preferred by the Respondent No. 5, the same was allowed and the District Collector directed the respondents to consider the candidature of the Respondent No. 5 while taking into consideration, the mark-sheet of B.Ed. submitted by the petitioner. The Collector before passing the order dated 14.06.2002 has not afforded any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, who was the effected party. Thus, there is violation of principle of natural justice in this case. 10. That apart the Respondent No. 5 has been appointed on the post of Senior Teacher and he has no lis in the instant matter. Thus, the grievance of the Respondent No. 5 does not survive. 11. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the present writ petition is allowed and the order dated 14.06.2002 (Annexure P/11) is quashed and set-aside. 12. No order as to costs.