Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 205 (RAJ)

Soraj Meena v. State of Rajasthan

2015-01-22

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2015
Hon'ble MEHTA, J.—By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court being dissatisfied and aggrieved by the action of the respondents in denying him appointment to the post of Gram Sevak cum Paden Sachiv despite having secured the requisite number of marks for being appointed on the said post. 2. Facts in brief are that 650 posts of Gram Sevak cum Paden Sachiv were advertised by of an advertisement (Annex.3). Out of 650 posts, 12.5% seats were reserved for candidates falling in the category of Ex-serviceman. The petitioner an Ex-serviceman and after having taken retirement from the Army, he applied against the said post in the District Bhilwara in pursuance of the said advertisement and secured 93.675% marks in the written examination. The result of the successful candidates was declared and a merit list (Annex.2) was published. The petitioner claims that he was utterly surprised to find that his name was not amongst the list of the selected candidates for the District Bhilwara despite the fact that three candidates, whose names appear at Sr.Nos.15, 24 and 29 of the merit list, were given appointment against the posts reserved for the Ex-serviceman even though they had secured lesser marks as compared to him. Accordingly, the petitioner has approached this Court assailing the unjust and arbitrary action of the respondents in depriving him of appointment despite candidates, having secured lesser number of marks being appointed in the same selection process. Whilst entertaining the writ petition, this Court passed an order dated 28.3.2011 directing that the selection process shall be subject to the final decision of the instant writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the intimation given to the petitioner, the sole reason for non-inclusion of his name in the merit list is that the certificate of graduation dated 30.6.2004 issued to him by the Armed Forces Services was not considered valid for being appointed against the advertised posts. Learned counsel submits that only qualification which was mentioned in the advertisement as eligibility criterion was that the candidate concerned should be a graduate. He contends that the certificate of graduation held by the petitioner is equivalent to a graduation certificate issued by any recognized educational institution as was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Executive Officer, NSSO & Ors. He contends that the certificate of graduation held by the petitioner is equivalent to a graduation certificate issued by any recognized educational institution as was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Executive Officer, NSSO & Ors. vs. Biswa Bhusan Nandi reported in 2008 AIR SCW 6472. He submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court approved the view taken by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court that the graduation certificate issued by the Armed Forces Services to an Ex-serviceman having undergone matriculation course and after having put in more than 15 years of service puts him at par with those having graduation. Learned counsel submits that admittedly, the petitioner had passed Sr.Secondary Examination and was issued the graduation certificate (Annex.4) after having put in nearly 16 years of service in the Armed Forces. Thus, relying on the aforesaid Supreme Court Judgment, he contends that the petitioner was holding the requisite eligibility criterion for being appointed as a Gram Sevak cum Paden Sachiv and prays that the writ petition be accepted and the respondents be directed to give appointment to the petitioner in the said selection process with all consequential benefits. 4. Per contra, the learned AGC appearing for the respondents contends that graduation was a minimum qualification prescribed in the corresponding advertisement for being appointed as Gram Sevak. He however does not dispute that the petitioner stood higher in merit as compared to the other persons from the reserved category of Ex-serviceman who were given appointment vide order (Annex.2). However, relying on a letter dated 3.5.2008 issued by the Dy.Secretary (Admn.) of the Panchayati Raj Department of the State of Rajasthan, he contends that it was communicated by the said letter that the graduation certificate issued by the Army would not constitute a valid qualification of graduation for being appointed as a Gram Sevak. Learned counsel thus submits that the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature for being appointed against the reserved category is justified, inasmuch as, he was not having the graduation certificate issued by a recognized institution and as a consequence, was not eligible for being appointed as a Gram Sevak. 5. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the material available on record. 6. 5. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the material available on record. 6. For resolving the controversy, it is to be seen as to what exactly was the qualification prescribed in the advertisement (Annex.3) for appointment to the post of Gram Sevak. As per condition No.5 of the said advertisement, the requisite educational qualification was graduation. It was not specified in the advertisement that the graduation was required to be from any particular institution. The petitioner holds a degree of Sr.Secondary and was issued a graduation certificate (Annex.4) by the Armed Forces Services. The language of the graduation certificate (Annex.4) is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of convenience:- “1. This is to certify that as per Government of India, Ministry of Personnel Public Grievance and Pension (Department of Personnel and Training) OM No.15012/8/82/Estt.(D) Dated 12 Feb 86, Ex-servicemen who are matriculate (which terms includes ex-serviceman who have obtained the Indian Army Special Certificate of Education or the corresponding certificate in the Navy or the Air Force), and has put in not less than 15 years of service in the Armed Force of the Union may be considered eligible for appointment to any reserved vacancy in Group ‘C’ posts for which the essential qualification is graduation and where experience of technical or professional nature is not essential. 2. In view of the above concession, Service Number 2684085N Rank Ex-Hav Name & Initials Soraj Meena Trade Int.Sol who had served in the Indian Army for 16 years from 17 Dec 88 to 30 Jun 2004 may be considered educationally qualified for reserved Group ‘C’ posts where prescribed qualification is graduation.” 7. Upon a plain reading of the language of the aforesaid certificate, it is evident that the petitioner was conferred the qualification of graduation with entitlement for being appointed on Group-C posts where prescribed qualification is graduation. 8. An identical controversy arose before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court regarding the validity of the certificate of graduation issued by the Armed Forces Services. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held that the certificate of graduation issued by the Armed Forces Services to an Ex-serviceman having put in more than 15 years of service and bearing a matriculation certificate brought him at par with those having graduation. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held that the certificate of graduation issued by the Armed Forces Services to an Ex-serviceman having put in more than 15 years of service and bearing a matriculation certificate brought him at par with those having graduation. The said view expressed by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court was approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Biswa Bhusan Nandi (supra). The relevant portion of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein the Calcutta High Court’s view was noted is quoted hereinbelow for ready reference :- “… Therefore, the question remains as to how far the authority was justified in refusing to give appointment to the petitioner on the ground that the notification dated 12.2.1986 brought him at par with the people having qualification as graduate but in view of the specific qualification required for recruitment to the post of Data Entry Opera-tor, the present petitioner could not have any claim. In the peculiar background of the present case, as indicated hereinbefore, we find it difficult to accept this contention. Here the petitioner not only passed both the written and the viva voce tests, being an Ex-Serviceman having putting (sic put in) more than 15 years of service in Indian Air Force, his matriculation qualification brought him at par with those having graduation. In absence of any clarifying clause in the notification dated 12.2.1986, it may be unjust in the background of the present case to deny the petitioner an appointment mainly on the ground that the essential qualification required for the post of Data Entry Operator, Gr.B, was graduation with Mathematics and Statistics. …” 9. Genuineness of the certificate (Annex.4), which has been palced on record of the writ petition is not disputed by the respondents. The certificate was issued by the Armed Forces Services and clearly stipulates that the petitioner may be considered educationally qualified for reserved Group-C posts where prescribed qualification is graduation. The said certificate was issued in pursuance of an office memorandum issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Govt. of India dated 12.2.1986. Therefore, such certificate has to be treated as a certificate of graduation, which precisely was the eligibility criterion for appointment to the post of Gram Sevak cum Paden Sachiv as per the advertisement (Annex.3). The said certificate was issued in pursuance of an office memorandum issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Govt. of India dated 12.2.1986. Therefore, such certificate has to be treated as a certificate of graduation, which precisely was the eligibility criterion for appointment to the post of Gram Sevak cum Paden Sachiv as per the advertisement (Annex.3). The respondents have relied upon an office order (Annex.R/1) as per which, a query was raised regarding the validity of graduation certificate issued by Armed Forces Services and the Dy.Secretary (Admn.), Panchayati Raj Department of the Government of Rajasthan wrote to all the Chief Executive Officers of the Zila Parishads that the graduation certificate held by the Ex-serviceman issued by the Army shall not be considered sufficient for the eligibility criterion and that only the candidates holding a graduation certificate/degree from a recognized university will be considered as eligible. The said letter was not issued on the basis of any statutory Rule, government circular or order. No basis has been shown as to under what authority, the said letter came to be issued by the Dy.Secretary. It is not in dispute that the petitioner stood higher in merit amongst the reserved category candidates for the post reserved in the quota of Ex-serviceman. Thus, the action of the respondent authority in denying appointment to the petitioner on the post of Gram Sevak cum Paden Sachiv on the ground that he was not holding requisite educational qualification is unjust and arbitrary. 10. Thus, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of Gram Sevak cum Paden Sachiv from the date the other candidates were so appointed in pursuance of the select list (Annex.2) dated 10.3.2011. The petitioner shall be treated as being appointed with reference to the said date but actual mone-tary benefits shall accrue to the petitioner from the date of his appointment. For the remaining period, he shall be accorded notional benefits. 11. The compliance of this order shall be made within a period of two months. 12. No order as to costs.