ORDER : 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the communication dated 26.07.2021, whereby the respondents have refused to consider petitioner’s certificate of merit issued by Jump Rope Federation of India. 2. The facts appertain are that the petitioner applied for the post of Teacher Gr.III, Level-2, Subject Social Studies, pursuant to recruitment notification dated 31.07.2018. While submitting his application form, the petitioner staked his claim towards Outstanding Sportsperson Category, indicating “Yes” in the concerned column of application form. The petitioner, being meritorious on the basis of the criteria mentioned in the advertisement, was called for document verification. 3. According to the petitioner, when he appeared for document verification, though he had two certificates, namely, Gold Medal in RGOI National Pro-Kabaddi League, 2018 (hereinfter referred to as ‘First Certificate’) and certificate evincing that he stood third in 9th Senior Jump Rope Championship, 2012-13 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Second Certificate’), but he produced the First Certificate only as he had secured gold-medal in such event, because the second certificate showed that he had secured 3rd position in the tournament. 4. According to the petitioner, respondents considered the petitioner to be an outstanding sportsperson on the basis of his first certificate (RGOI National Pro-Kabaddi League, 2018) and offered him appointment vide order dated 05.07.2019. 5. After joining the services, the petitioner has been serving the respondents, when he came to receive a notice dated 10.06.2020, alleging that the petitioner has been wrongly considered as an outstanding sports-person on the basis of certificate of RGOI National Pro-Kabaddi League, 2018. It may be noted that said notice was issued pursuant to letter dated 08.06.2020 issued by the Director – respondent No.3 requiring the respondent No.4 to terminate petitioner’s services after observing principles of natural justice. 6. The petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court being SBCWP No.5301/2021, challenging the communication dated 08.06.2020 issued by the Director, inter alia, contending that the petitioner had another certificate of 9th Senior Jump Rope Championship, 2012-13 (the Second Certificate), in which he stood third. While apprehending that the respondent No.4 would feel bound by the directives of its Director, it was prayed that the respondents be directed to consider petitioner’s Second Certificate. Petitioner’s aforesaid writ petition was not entertained by this Court finding it to be based on apprehension. While apprehending that the respondent No.4 would feel bound by the directives of its Director, it was prayed that the respondents be directed to consider petitioner’s Second Certificate. Petitioner’s aforesaid writ petition was not entertained by this Court finding it to be based on apprehension. However, an observation was made in the order dated 06.04.2021, which reads thus:- “1. The petitioner was selected on the post of Teacher Grade-III Level 2, subject Social Studies, pursuant to recruitment notification dated 31.07.2018 under the category of Outstanding Sports Person. 2. The petitioner had thereafter received a notice dated 08.06.2020, inter alia, indicating that certificate of RGOI National Pro Kabaddi League 2018, is not issued by recognized body, hence his appointment under the Outstanding Sports Person category is against the rules. 3. Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had also participated in Jump Rope Federation of India and stood 3rd, but, since he had a certificate of Gold Medal in relation to RGOI National Pro Kabaddi League 2018, the respondents had considered only such certificate and offered him appointment without considering his other certificate relating to Jump Rope Championship 2012-2013. 4. It is also pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that in response to the notice dated 08.06.2020, the petitioner has submitted a representation and requested the respondents to consider other certificate of Jump Rope Championship. 5. He apprehends that respondents will not consider the same. 6. The present writ petition is therefore disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider petitioner’s representation/reply dated 15.06.2020, in accordance with law and take into account his other certificate of Jump Rope Championship and consider his candidature accordingly. 7. It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide the petitioner’s representation has been issued only with a view to ensure expeditious redressal of petitioner’s grievance. The same may not be construed to be an order to decide the representation in a particular manner. 8. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.” (emphasis supplied) 7. The petitioner thereafter filed another representation/reply dated 02.07.2020 before respondent No.4, inter alia, stating that he had both the certificates at the time of document verification, however, his first certificate (RGOI National Pro-Kabaddi League, 2018) was considered as the same was better (gold-medal). It was prayed in the reply that petitioner’s second certificate (issued by the Jump Rope Federation of India) be considered. It was prayed in the reply that petitioner’s second certificate (issued by the Jump Rope Federation of India) be considered. 8. The show-cause notice issued by the respondents culminated into order dated 26.07.2021, whereby petitioner’s services were terminated, inter alia, holding that the certificate of RGOI National Pro-Kabaddi League, 2018, produced by the petitioner, does not entitle him to be considered as an outstanding sports-person. 9. Mr. Jangid, learned counsel for the petitioner, instead of sticking to the stand that the petitioner can be considered as an outstanding sports-person on the basis of his first certificate, submitted that the respondents were required to consider petitioner’s second certificate (9th Senior Jump Rope Championship, 2012-13), which was submitted along with the reply/additional reply. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited Court’s attention towards the order dated 06.04.2021 passed by this Court and argued that on the basis of direction so issued, the respondents were required to objectively consider petitioner’s candidature on the basis of second certificate issued by Jump Rope Federation of India. 11. Learned counsel also argued that at the time of document verification, the petitioner did possess/have both the certificates, however, as his first certificate was of having secured a gold-medal, the same was taken into consideration by the respondents and upon finding him eligible the appointment was accorded to him. 12. Learned counsel further argued that the respondents have adopted microscopic approach and were swayed by the Condition No.4.4 of the advertisement, holding that other documents cannot be considered. Learned counsel argued that Condition No.4.4 of the advertisement does not restrain the respondents from considering the second certificate, inasmuch as, said Condition of the advertisement provides that no change in the application form will be permissible and the petitioner had not sought any change in the application form. 13. Mr. Rishi Soni, associate to Mr. Pankaj Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, invited Court’s attention towards the copy of the application form, produced by the respondents and highlighted that even in the column meant for “Specific Category”, the petitioner has mentioned “No” against column “Have you won a medal in National Tournament”. 14. Learned counsel argued that since the petitioner himself had indicated “No”, the petitioner cannot claim himself to be an outstanding sportsperson let alone the second certificate. 15. 14. Learned counsel argued that since the petitioner himself had indicated “No”, the petitioner cannot claim himself to be an outstanding sportsperson let alone the second certificate. 15. Learned counsel further argued that in view of Condition No.4.4 of the advertisement, the petitioner’s subsequent certificate cannot be taken into consideration. Court’s attention was also invited towards the reply to the notice filed by the petitioner to contend that petitioner did not even mention that he had brought two certificates at the time of document verification. 16. Heard. 17. Petitioner’s stand and position can be easily comprehended that though he had two certificates; one, of having secured gold-medal and another, of having secured third position, he had firstly relied and produced the certificate of RGOI National Pro-Kabaddi League, in which he has secured gold-medal. 18. In the opinion of this Court, had the respondents questioned/doubted petitioner’s entitlement on the basis of the first certificate, naturally he would have produced the second certificate, in which he had secured third position. 19. So far as Mr. Soni’s argument that the petitioner himself had indicated “No” against the column meant to indicate the award is concerned, this Court is of the view that such stand is hyper-technical and an after-thought. If the respondents were of the view that his candidature as an outstanding sportsperson could not be considered as the petitioner had indicated “No” against the column meant to show medal/award, they could well have rejected his candidature in outstanding sportsperson category, at the very first stage. 20. Having not done so and having considered the petitioner to be an outstanding sportsperson, as per their own assessment, they cannot now take a u-turn to contend that petitioner cannot be considered to be an outstanding sportsperson at all, more particularly when the impugned order itself is not based on such reasoning. 21. A perusal of petitioner’s reply dated 02.07.2021 (Annex.4) clearly shows that in para No.11, the petitioner had stated that he did have both the certificates (certificate of 9th Senior Jump Rope Championship, 2012-13 and RGOI National Pro-Kabaddi League, 2018) at the time of document verification and thus, the respondents’ stand that the petitioner has become wiser, is not tenable. 22. A perusal of petitioner’s reply dated 02.07.2021 (Annex.4) clearly shows that in para No.11, the petitioner had stated that he did have both the certificates (certificate of 9th Senior Jump Rope Championship, 2012-13 and RGOI National Pro-Kabaddi League, 2018) at the time of document verification and thus, the respondents’ stand that the petitioner has become wiser, is not tenable. 22. As indicated earlier, had the respondents refused to consider the petitioner as an outstanding sportsperson on the basis of First Certificate, he would definitely have relied upon the second certificate and thus, no issue would have arisen. In the opinion of this Court, the order dated 26.07.2021 terminating the services of the petitioner, is not in accordance with law. 23. In the factual back-drop like the present one, when a candidate has been offered appointment on the basis of one of many certificates and then, he has served the respondents for two years, the respondents are required to take a bit liberal view, unless the certificate, which was produced, itself is found to be forged. 24. The writ petition, therefore, succeeds. The impugned order dated 26.07.2021 is hereby quashed and set aside. 25. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jalore on 06.09.2021 along with his original certificate of 9th Senior Jump Rope Championship, 2012-13, issued by the Jump Rope Federation of India. The respondent No.4, in turn, shall get the enquiry conducted in relation to such certificate and petitioner’s entitlement on its basis, as early as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks. 26 Needless to observe that if the respondents are of the view that petitioner cannot be considered as an outstanding sportsperson even according to the second certificate (9th Senior Jump Rope Championship, 2012-13), they shall pass a speaking order in accordance with law under intimation to the petitioner. Till such decision is taken, the petitioner shall be allowed to work. In case, the petitioner is found eligible on the basis of the second certificate, he shall be kept in service with all consequential benefits. 27. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.