Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 3032 (RAJ)

Sanjay Dadich v. State of Rajasthan

2005-11-18

PREM SHANKAR ASOPA

body2005
Judgment Prem Shanker Asopa, J.-With consent of both parties the writ petition was heard for final disposal. 2. That by this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 01.01.2004, (Annexure-11), whereby he was awarded 95.87 marks and assigned merit No. 62 in the merit list of Physical Instructor Grade II and has further claimed that the respondents have committed an error in not considering the State Level Certificate submitted by the petitioner and not awarding the bonus marks of the said certificate, as a result of which he has been assigned lower marking and merit, which has resulted in denial of appointment on the post of Physical Instructor Grade II. 3. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that an advertisement for the post of Physical Instructor Grade II was issued on 27.08.1998 in pursuance of which the petitioner has applied for the said post alongwith requisite documents and he was initially held ineligible on account of passing the B.P.E. Examination from the Amrawati University but even when the identical writ petitions were accepted and the candidates were held eligible, he was not considered eligible, as such was constrained to file a writ petition before this Honble Court, which was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1218/2001 and the same was allowed on 19.04.2001. Even, thereafter the petitioner was not given appointment on the pretext that his name stands lower in merit. The petitioner filed a contempt petition, wherein a direction was issued on 01.01.2004 for the examination of the merit of the petitioner and earlier percentage of marks and merit was found not to be revised in compliance of the said direction. 4. In the present writ petition the petitioner has submitted that he has filed the copy of the State Level as well as District Level Certificate of Sports of Tennis and Kho-Kho respectively and the respondents have only added the bonus marks of District Level Certificate whereas the bonus marks of State Level Certificate have not been added. The petitioner has also submitted that on 011.2001, the respondents sent a letter to the petitioner requiring the petitioner to appear and submit the original certificate. In response to which he appeared and submitted the original certificate. The petitioner has also submitted that on 011.2001, the respondents sent a letter to the petitioner requiring the petitioner to appear and submit the original certificate. In response to which he appeared and submitted the original certificate. After giving the photo stat copies of the same, the originals were returned to him, which were counter signed by the District Education Officer, who is competent to do so. In case the ten bonus marks of State Level Certificate are added then the merit of the petitioner shall be higher than the less meritorious selected person who has obtained 96.25 marks and he is entitled for appointment. 5. In reply to the writ petition the respondents have submitted that the certificate of State Level Tournament was not counter signed by the competent authority. Therefore, the same was to be verified by the concerned head of the institution. However, the same was not forwarded by the concerned head of the institution during the interview which took place between 17.09.1998 to 19.09.1998. The respondents have further submitted that the State Level Certificate could not be considered as a genuine certificate and no marks for State Level Tournaments would be awarded to the petitioner. The respondents have further submitted that in response to the letter dated 211.2001, Annexure-9, the petitioner did not submit the original certificate of the State Level. It was further denied that after verifying the certificate, they returned the original and kept photo copy of the same in the file. 6. In rejoinder the petitioner has again reiterated the stand taken in the writ petition and claimed the bonus marks of the State Level Certificate. 7. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the photo copy of District Level and State Level Certificates were attached with the original application. There appears to be no justification for awarding the marks of District Level Certificate only and ignoring the State Level Certificate. The Counsel for the petitioner has also relied on an order passed in the Contempt Petition No. 76/2002 decided on 10.11.2003 by the Division Bench of this Court, wherein it has been held that the counter signature on the certificates are not necessary. .8. The submission of the Counsel for the respondent is that since the State Level Certificate was not countersigned, therefore, the same was not considered. .9. .8. The submission of the Counsel for the respondent is that since the State Level Certificate was not countersigned, therefore, the same was not considered. .9. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. .10. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner that the counter signature is not necessary, has merit and is supported by the Judgment of this Court in D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 76/2002 (Supra). The relevant portion of which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- .“This Court in various pronouncement held for awarding marks and counter signatures on the certificates are not necessary. In the case of Panna Lal Saini vs. State & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6055/1990 decided on 210.2003, which the latest decision on this point, this proposition has been again reiterated.” 11. Thus, the submission of the Counsel for the respondent does not hold water, in view of the pronouncement of this Honble Court. The petitioner is entitled for the bonus marks of the State Level Certificate. 12. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to re-assess the merit of the petitioner after taking into consideration the bonus marks of the State Level Certificate and in case he is found suitable and any person lower in merit is appointed then the petitioner be also given appointment on the post of P.T.I. Grade II w.e.f. the date his junior persons were appointed with all consequential benefits.