Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 217 (RAJ)

Mahipal Singh Chouhan v. State of Rajasthan

2023-01-18

DINESH MEHTA

body2023
ORDER : 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with the grievance that though his name was reflected in the provisional merit list, he was not given order of appointment and the persons less meritorious than him have been appointed. 2. The facts lie in a very narrow compass, which run as under: 2.1 The respondent Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial Service Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Selection Board”), issued an advertisement No. 1/2021 on 05.02.2021 and invited applications for the post of Agriculture Supervisor. The petitioner desirous of such post, submitted his online application form on 10.03.2021. 2.2 According to the terms of the advertisement, particularly clause 7(ii) thereof, an incumbent was required to acquire academic qualification prior to the date of written examination. 2.3 When the petitioner applied for such post, he was in the final year of the B.Sc. Agriculture course and before the date of the examinations, which were held on 18.09.2021, the petitioner's result came to be declared (on 31.08.2021) and he had cleared papers of all the subjects except Mathematics. 2.4 The petitioner was consequently given supplementary/backlog in Mathematics. The petitioner did appear in the supplementary examinations and cleared the same on 16.12.2021. 2.5 But before the result of supplementary was declared the written examinations were held by the Board as scheduled (18.09.2021). 2.6 The Selection Board rejected petitioner's candidature as he had not passed B.Sc. Final Year examinations on the date of written examination i.e. 18.09.2021. 3. Mr. Vikram Singh Bhati, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner had cleared due/backlog paper of Mathematics in supplementary examination, the respondent ought to have included his name in the final select list, which was issued on 07.03.2022, inasmuch as, by such date, the petitioner had acquired the requisite educational qualification. 4. While submitting that on the date of submitting application form, the petitioner was a Final Year student and he was entitled for applying for the post, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the result of supplementary examination relates back to the date of original result, which was declared on 31.08.2021 and, hence, the respondents' action is illegal. 5. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Abhishek Singh Panwar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 5. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Abhishek Singh Panwar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11196/2011 and submitted that petitioner's case is squarely covered by such judgment and his petition also deserves to be allowed. 6. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court rendered in the case of Harinder Kaur Chandok v. The Punjab School Education Board, AIR 1988 P&H 244 . 7. Mr. Vinit Sanadhya, learned counsel for the respondent - Selection Board, on the other hand argued that the terms of the advertisement are required to be followed and in the light of clause 7(ii) of the subject advertisement, the petitioner cannot get any relief. He submitted that in the matters of recruitment, sympathetic consideration has no role to play. 8. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Council of Homeopathic System of Medicine, Punjab & Ors. v. Suchintan & Ors. : AIR 1994 SC 1761 and submitted that the controversy involved in the present case has been set at rest by the adjudication made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the said case. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 10. v. Suchintan & Ors. : AIR 1994 SC 1761 and submitted that the controversy involved in the present case has been set at rest by the adjudication made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the said case. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 10. The relevant condition of the advertisement reads thus: ^^7- ik=rk ,oa 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk%& ¼2½ nsoukxjh fyih esa fy[kh fgUnh esa dk;Z djus dk Kku ,oa jktLFkku dh laLd`fr dk KkuA tks O;fDr ikB~;Øe ds vafre o”kZ dh ijh{kk esa mifLFkr gqvk gS ;k lfEefyr gks jgk gks] tks bu fu;eksa esa mfYyf[kr in ds fy, 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk dh vko';drk gS ;k lh/kh HkrhZ ds fy, d`f”k i;Zos{kd in ds fy, vkosnu djus ds fy, ik= gksxk ysfdu og@mls mi;qDr p;u ,tsalh dks visf{kr 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk izkIr djus dk izek.k izLrqr djuk gksxk%& 1- eq[; ijh{kk esa mifLFkr gksus ls igys] tgka fyf[kr ijh{kk vkSj lk{kkRdkj ds nks pj.kksa ds ek/;e ls p;u fd;k tkrk gS] 2- lk{kkRdkj esa mifLFkr gksus ls igys] tgka fyf[kr ijh{kk vkSj lk{kkRdkj ds ek/;e ls p;u fd;k tkrk gSA 3- fyf[kr ijh{kk ;k lk{kkRdkj esa mifLFkr gksus ls igys tgka dsoy fyf[kr ijh{kk ;k dsoy lk{kkRdkj ds ek/;e ls p;u fd;k tkuk gS] tSlk Hkh ekeyk gksA leqfpr p;u ,tsUlh@cksMZ dks visf{kr 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk fyf[kr ijh{kk dh frfFk rd vftZr dj ysus dk lcwr izLrqr djuk gksxkA cksMZ }kjk mDr inksa ij p;u fyf[kr ijh{kk ds ek/;e ls fd;k tk;sxkA** 11. The facts are not in dispute that though petitioner's result for Final Year Examination was declared on 31.08.2021, he got supplementary in Mathematics and he could clear the same only on 16.12.2021, when the result of supplementary examination was declared. It is also not in dispute that much before the declaration of the result of the supplementary examination, the Selection Board had conducted the written examination (on 18.09.2021). 12. According to this Court the terms of the advertisement are required to be strictly adhered to. In the teeth of clause 7 (ii) of the advertisement providing that a candidate has to pass the final examination before the date of holding written examination by the Board, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 12. According to this Court the terms of the advertisement are required to be strictly adhered to. In the teeth of clause 7 (ii) of the advertisement providing that a candidate has to pass the final examination before the date of holding written examination by the Board, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The case of the petitioner who has passed the examination after clearing the paper in supplementary examination can not be equated with a candidate who passes the exam due to subsequent increase in the marks under revaluation. 13. In case of revaluation, the result of the revaluation can relate back to the date of declaration of original result, inasmuch as, the fault ultimately lies with the examination authorities, whereas in the case of supplementary examination, the examining body cannot be faulted with, it is the student alone who is responsible. The very nomenclature “supplementary” means filling of the deficiencies. 14. Since, the petitioner has failed to fill - up the deficiency of clearing paper of Mathematics, his qualificational eligibility has to be reckoned from the date when he passed the paper in the supplementary examination. 15. The judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Abhishek Singh Panwar (supra) is per incuriam in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court delivered in the case of Council of Homeopathic System of Medicine, Punjab & Ors. (supra). That apart, a reading of judgment in the case of Abhishek Singh Panwar (supra) reveals that the Court found the fault of the examination authority, who did not conduct the supplementary examination for a considerable time. The Court thus held that it was none of the fault of the petitioner therein, who could not appear and clear the supplementary examination; whereas in the instant case, the supplementary examination was conducted in time and even the result of the supplementary examination was declared well within three months, which in no case can be said to be belated. 16. The judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court which has only persuasive value is also clearly distinguishable on facts - the same relates to the candidate having been declared ineligible due to deficiency in payment of application fees and the Court ascribed the fault on the examination authority based on their process. 17. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any substance in the petition. 17. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any substance in the petition. The writ petition therefore, fails. 18. Stay petition also stands dismissed accordingly.