Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1152 (RAJ)

RADHA CHAUDHARY v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2017-05-04

NIRMALJIT KAUR

body2017
JUDGMENT : Nirmaljit Kaur, J. The prayer in the present petition is for directing the respondents to consider both the (PGDCA) computer certificate issued by the Manav Bharti University and thereafter give appointment to the petitioner on the post of LDC in pursuance to the advertisement dated 14.2.2013 as well as the Diploma in computer application obtained from RS-CIT issued by the Vardhaman Mahaveer Open University for appointment on the said post. 2. As per the Clause 5 of the advertisement dated 14.02.2013, the requisite qualifications for the post of LDC are:- vkosnd }kjk vkosnu izLrqr djus dh vafre fnuakd rd fu/kkZfjr 'kS{kf.kd@iz'kS{kf.kd vgZrk;s vftZr dj yh xbZ gksA fu/kkZfjr U;wure ;ksX;rk fuEukuqlkj gS%& vkosnd fdlh ekU;rk izkIr cksM+Z ls lhfu;j lSds.M+jh ;k mlds lerqY; ijh{kk mRrh.kZ gksuk vko';d gS rFkk bysDV~ksfuDl foHkkx] Hkkjr ljdkj ds fu;U=.kk/khu Mh0vks0bZ0,0lh0lh0 }kjk vk;ksftr ^^vks ;k mPprj Lrj izek.ki= ikB~;dzeA ;k O;kolkf;d izf'k{k.k Ldhe dh jk"V~h;@jkT; ifj"kn ds v/khu vk;ksftr dEI;wVj vkijsVj vkSj izksxzkfeax vflLVsUV lh0vks0ih0,0@M+kVk fizizs'ku vkSj dEI;wVj lkQVos;j Mh0ih0lh0,l0 izek.k i=A ;k Hkkjr esa fof/k }kjk LFkkfir fdlh fo'ofo|ky; ls ;k ljdkj }kjk ekU;rk izkIr fdlh laLFkk ls dEI;wVj lkabl@dEI;wVj ,Iyhds'kUl esa fM+IyksekA ;k ljdkj }kjk ekU;rk izkIr fdlh ikWyhVsfDud laLFkk ls dEI;wVj lkbal vkSj bathfu;fjax esa fM+Iyksek ;k jktLFkku ukyst fuxe fyfeVsM+ ds fu;a=.kk/khu o/kZeku egkohj [kqyk fo'ofo|ky;] dksVk }kjk vk;skftr lwpuk izks|ksfxdh vkj0,l0lh0vkbZ0Vh0 esa izek.ki= ikB~;dze 3. A perusal of the above advertisement shows that only one of the above professional qualifications were required for eligibility. It is contended that the petitioner had two professional qualifications and therefore, he should have been considered as eligible under either of the two qualifications. As per the petitioner, (i) he possessed the Post Graduate Diploma in Computer application from Manav Bharti University established under section 2(f) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 which was also a recognised Institute under Section 22 of the State Legislature Act and duly passed the said diploma course in the year 2010 before filing of the application form, (ii) He was registered in RS-CIT Examination at the Vardhaman Mahaveer Open University Kota recognised from Rajasthan Knowledge Corporation Limited (RKCL) before the filing of application form and had duly passed the said course of computer application. 4. Clause 15 of the advertisement specifically requires that candidature will be considered only in case the certificates are produced in original at the time of the verification of the documents. 4. Clause 15 of the advertisement specifically requires that candidature will be considered only in case the certificates are produced in original at the time of the verification of the documents. Same was mandatory. Clause 15 reads thus:- ^^15 & foLr`r vkosnu i= tek djkuk foLr`r vkosnu i= ftyk ifj"kn esa mu vH;fFkZ;ksa dks O;fDr'k% izLrqr djuk gksxk] ftUgs eSfjV esa LFkku izkIr djus ij nLrkostksa ds lR;kiu gsrq cqyk;k tk;sxkA lekpkj i=ksa esa izdkf'kr foKfIr ds vk/kkj ij izkIr lwpuk ds vuqlkj fu/kkZfjr frfFk dks foLr`r vkosnu i= e; lE;d~ nLrkost rFkk ewy izek.k i=ksa lfgr izLrqr ugha djus ij vkosnd dh ik=rk Lohdkj ugh dh tkosxhA ,sls vkosndksa dks ftyk ijf"kn }kjk fu/kkZfjr dk;Zdze ds vuqlkj foLr`r vkosnu i= e; pSd fyLV rFkk ewy nLrkost tkap gsrq izLrqr djuk vfuok;Z gksxkA vkosnd vkWuykbZu vkosnu dh izfr foLr`r vkosnu i= ds lkFk vko';d :i ls izLrqr djsxkA foLr`r vkosnu i= o pSd fyLV dk izk:r osclkbZV www.exampraj.rajasthan.gov.in ls MkmuyksM+ dj ysosA^^ 5. It is evident from Clause 15 of the advertisement reproduced above that every candidate was required to produce the certificate of the requisite qualification at the time of verification of the documents. Further, as per condition No. 16.1, only those certificates could be considered, detail of which was filled in the application form. Condition No. 16.1 reads as under:- ^^16-1 % vkosndks }kjk vkWuykbZu vkosnu ij miyC/k djkbZ xbZ lwpuk ds vk/kkj ij gh p;u izfdz;k esa izksfotuy :i ls lfEeyfyr fd;k tkosxkA vkosnd }kjk izLrqr nLrkostksa dh oS/krk ,oa ik=rk laca/kh tkap djokus dk leLr mRrjnkf;Ro Lo;a vkosnd dk gksxkA^^ 6. A perusal of the application form shows that the petitioner had filled RS-CIT as his professional qualification in computer training. On the basis of the admission in the said course, he was allowed to appear in the written examination. However, he failed to produce the certificate of RS-CIT at the time of verification of the documents. Admittedly, the documents were verified on 10.06.2013 whereas the result of RS-CIT was declared on 7.9.2013 i.e. almost three months after the cut off date. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hukma Ram Bishnoi v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Admittedly, the documents were verified on 10.06.2013 whereas the result of RS-CIT was declared on 7.9.2013 i.e. almost three months after the cut off date. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hukma Ram Bishnoi v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (writ) No. 317/2016 decided on 15.07.2016 wherein the appeal of the appellant was allowed and the respondents were directed to consider the certificate made available by the petitioner after the cut off date. However, in the said case, there was no condition either in the advertisement or in the rules that a candidate must produce the certificate as mentioned in the application form on the date of counselling/verification of the documents. In the present case, as per Clause 16.1 of the advertisement, a candidate was required to produce the certificate at the time of counselling/verification of the documents. There is no challenge to the same in the writ petition. The result of the RS-CIT was declared almost after three months of the cut off date. Moreover, the basis of the said judgment is that the certificate of RS-CIT was for the purpose of grant of bonus marks and not the basic qualification of eligibility. However, in the present case, for appointment on the post of LDC, the said certificate is for the purpose of determining the eligibility criteria and not just for grant of bonus marks. Accordingly, the said judgment does not help the petitioner in the facts of the present case. 7. With respect to the qualification of Post Graduate Diploma in Computer application from Manav Bharti University, it is admitted that the petitioner did not mention the said qualification in his application form. The respondents could have only considered the qualification/certificate as mentioned in the application form which is evident from Clause 16.1. of the advertisement. There was no occasion for the respondents to consider the certificate or the degree which was not even mentioned in the application form. In view of the above, the present writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.