Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Madhav Prakash vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 7 October, 1996
Equivalent citations: AIR1997RAJ166, 1997(1)WLC25, 1996(2)WLN173
JUDGMENT Verma, J.
1. This special appeal is directed against the Judgment and order of learned single Judge in S. B. Civil Writ petition No. 2771 of 1995, decided on 6-5-1996. The petitioner/appellant who had passed the Senior Secondary Examinations from the Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer in the year 1995, Securing 591 marks out of 900 marks (Approximately 65.66%), had applied for admission to STC course for which the requisite qualifications advertised as per letter No. P-12(1) Edn.1/94 dated 18-8-1994 were 10 + 2 Examination. As per the petitioner-appellant, there is a provision for relaxation in the educational qualification in regard to reserved category, in case the candidates possessing 10 + 2 examination qualification are not available. In such circumstances/ the qualifications are said to have been relaxed to Secondary Examination. It is further mentioned that as per the above said letter/advertisement, 5 bonus marks are also to be awarded to those candidates who are dependants of the deceased employee of the Education Department. The copy of the instruction issued by the Education Department bearing date 18-8-1994 has been placed on record as Ex. P/2.
2. The petitioner had applied for admission in the said course, claiming his right of reservation against the quota of seats reserved for the dependents of the teachers of Education Department who had died in service. There is no dispute that father of the petitioner/ appellant had served in the Education Department and had expired on 8-11-77. He was claiming the seat against the quota reserved for such category.
3. The petitioner/appellant has placed on record a merit list Ex. P/5 prepared by the respondent whereby three persons i.e. Govind Prakash, Yogesh Sankhla and Bhanwarlal having percentage of 61.72%, 48.81% and 40.62%, respectively have been selected against the quota of reserved seats meant for dependents of deceased of Education Department. Out of the above three persons Yogesh Sankhla and Bhanwar Lal, even though have been shown as selected against the said reserved quota, but they actually belonged to the category of teachers working in the department. It is further submitted that all the said three persons are much below on the merit list. The respondents in written statements, had admitted all the material facts and had further submitted that after awarding 05 bonus marks to the petitioner/ appellant as per the instructions, the petitioner/ appellant marks on merit shall come to 70.66%. It has further been averred in the written statement that even though the minimum qualifications of eligibility in the course is Senior Secondary Examinations from the Board of Secondary Education, but a relaxation clause has been made in the instructions itself, prescribing the relaxation to reserved class as Secondary examination only to be eligible for applying for the STC course. It is further stated that the petitioner/appellant had applied against the reserved quota meant for dependent of the deceased employee, and the Board as prescribed the qualification as Secondary Ex-animation for the reseryed quota, therefore, the merit for the said category has been prepared on the basis of Secondary Examina-tion and not on the Sr. Secondary Examina-tion. As per the merit of Secondary Examination, the petitioner/ appellant would get only 53% marks. It is stated that there were 3 reserved seats for this category and out of the said three seats only one Govind Parkash was granted admission on the basis of merit; whereas other two persons i.e. Yogesh Sankhla and Bhanwar Lal were granted admission on the basis of priority fixed in the instruction i.e. to those candidates who are already in service in the Education Department under the category of dependents of deceased employee of Education Department.
4. We may not at this stage go into the matter whether two seats out of three reserved seats for dependents of deceased employee could be diverted to those employees who were already in service. The only question for consideration is whether under the rules, the petitioner/appellant was entitled for admission on the merits or not? The Rules/instructions issued by the State Government in Education Department, relevant for the said purpose are contained in Rules 9, 10 and 12 which reads as under :
¼9½'kS{khd ;ksX;rk% izos'k ds fy, 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk fuEu izdkj jgsxh && 1- ek/;fed f'k{kk cksMZ] vtesj ls ek/;fed ¼lSd.Mhj Ldwy ijh{kk&&vaxzsth] xf.kr] fgUnh lfgr vU; lHkh vfuok;Z fo"k;½ rFkk mlds lkFk cksMZ dh ¼gk;j lSd.Mjh½ vFkok lhfu;j gk;j lSd.Mjh ¼+++$ 2 Lrj½ ijh{kk mRrh.kZ A 2- ek/;fed f'k{kk cksMZ jktLFkku vFkok jkT; ljdkj lSd.Mjh@gk;j lSd.Mjh@lhfu;j gk;j lSd.Mjh ¼10$2½ ds le{k ekU;rk izkIr vU; cksMZ ls vk;ksftr lSd.Mjh ijh{kk ¼fgUnh] vaxzsth] xf.kr lfgr lHkh vfuok;Z fo"k;ksa½ rFkk mlds gk;j lSd.Mjh] lhfu;j gk;j lSd.Mjh ¼$2½ ijh{kk mRrh.kZ A 3- Hkk"kkbZ vYi la[;d f'k{kd izf'k{k.k@laLÑr izf'k{k.k ds fy, og Hkk"kk ftlesa vH;kFkhZ izf'k{k.k ysxk] og oSdfYid fo"k; ds :i esa lSd.Mjh ¼izosf'kdk½ gk;j lSd.Mjh ¼mik/;k;½ lhfu;j gk;j lSd.Mjh ¼10$2Lrj½ vU; led{k ijh{kk ds Lrjkuq:i v/;;u dh xbZ gks A 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk esa NwV % 1- efgykvksa] vuqlwfpr tkfr] tutkfr ¼efgyk@iq:"k½ lfgr lSfud dh ifRu@iq=@vfookfgr iq= o Hkw- iw-
lSfud dh ifRu@iq=@vfookfgr iq=h ;fn mPp ek/;fed ijh{kk@lh- gk;j lSd.Mjh dh ijh{kk ¼10 tek nks½ Lrj mRrh.kZ vU;kFkhZ miuC/k u gks rks lSd.Mjh ijh{kk vFkok led{k ijh{kk 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk ds vk'kkfFkZ;ksa ds vkosnu i=ksa ij fopkj fd;k tk ldrkk gS A 2- lsokjr fo/kok@rykd'kqnk efgykvksa rFkk e`r jkT; deZpkfj;ksa dks iRuh@iq=@vfookfgr iq=h ds izos'k ds fy, izos'k gsrq U;wure 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk lSd.Mjh Ldwy ijh{kk ¼cksMZ½ led{k ijh{kk mRrh.kZ jgsxh A ¼10½ dksVk fu/kkZj.k % 1- lg f'k{kk f'k{kd izf'k{k.k fo|ky;ksa@laLFkkuksa esa efgyk vk'kkfFkZ;ksa gsrq vkjf{kr 40 izfr'kr lhVksa ij loZizFke ftysa esa lsokjr fo/kok@rykd'kqnk efgykvksa ftudh fu;qfDr funs'kd izkFkfed ,oa ek/;fed f'k{kk jktLFkku [email protected] vf/kdkjh@ftyk f'k{kk vf/kdkjh }kjk dh xbZ gksxh A blds i'pkr~ 'ks"k jgh vU; lhVksa ij vU; oxZ dh efgykvksa dks fu;ekuqlkj izos'k fn;k tk;sxk A 2- vuqlwfpr tkfr ds vk'kkfFkZ;ksa gsrq 16 izfr'kr dk vkj{k.k jgsxk A 3- vuqlwfpr tutkfr ds vk'kkfFkZ;ksa gsrq 12 izfr'kr dk vkj{k.k jgsxk A 4- izR;sd MkbV ,oa ,l- Vh- lh-
esa e`r jkT; deZpkfj;ksa ds vkfJrksa gsrq 3 lhVsa vkjf{kr gksxh A e`r jkT; deZpkfj;ksa ds vk'kkFkhZ u feyus ij bu fjDr lhVksa dks lkekU; vk'kkFkhZ ls Hkjh tkosxh A 5- fodYkkax gsrq 3 izfr'kr lhV vkjf{kr gksxh A fodykax vk'kkFkhZ u miyC/k gksus ij fjDr lhV lkekU; vk'kkFkhZ ls Hkjh tk;sxh A 6- 'kghn lSfud@Hkw-
iw- lSfud@jktuhfrd ihfM+r ds iq=@vfookfgr iq=h@iRuh ds fy;s 2 LFkku vkjf{kr gsrq ,oa ,d LFkku 'kghn lSfud@Hkw- iw- lSfud ds vkf'kfFkZ;ksa gsrq gksxk A mDr Js.kh ds vk'kkFkhZ miyC/k u gksus ij bu lhVksa ij lkekU; izos'kkFkhZ dks izos'k fn;k tk;sxk A ¼12½ fo'ks"k izkFkfedrk ds vad % f'k{kk foHkkx ds v/;kid@v/;kfidk,a@deZpkfj;ksa dh ftudh ikap o"kZ dh lsokvksa ds i'pkr e`R;w ¼nsgkar½gks x;k gS rks muds iq=@iRuh@vfookfgr iq=h dks ikap cksul vad nsus dk izko/kku gS A
5. The respondents had also predated a merit list of the Candidates having passed the Sr. Secondary Examinations. The name of the petitioner/appellant appears at S. No. 3 of the said list with 70.66% marks. Name of Govind Prakash appears at S. No. 4 with 61.72% marks in the said list and he has been given admission and so other two persons Yogesh Sankhla and Bhanwar Lal appearing at S. Nos. 15 and 16 have been given admissions, but no percentage has been shown against these names. But the petitioner/ appellant has in Ex. P/5 depicted the percentage of said two persons as 48.81% and 40.62% which is admitted fact. Only question which arises for consideration is whether the merit is to be prepared in regard to reserved candidates on the minimum qualification prescribed for admission to the course i.e. Sr. Secondary Examination (10 + 2 examination) or merit should be prepared on the basis of lower examination in view of relaxation clause under instruction No. 9 as reproduced above. There is no doubt that if minimum qualifications are prescribed, those minimum qualifications are applicable to all the candidates applying for admission. In such situation, it cannot be said that any other merit of such reserved candidates could be prepared for selection in case the candidates having the minimum prescribed qualifications were available against the reserved class. The contention of learned counsel for the State that because of the reason that relaxation has been provided, the merit is to be prepared only on the basis of qualifications relaxed and not on the basis of minimum qualification prescribed, has no merit. Our attention has been invited to a decision of learned single Judge passed in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2936/95 (Krishna Kumar v. State and others) on 27-2-96. In that case, the petitioner Krishna decided Kumar who had also applied against the same category of reserved quota, obtained 62.66% marks including 5 bonus marks, being the son of deceased Govt. servant and stood at S. No. 2. It was held by learned single Judge as under :
"When a minimum qualification is prescribed for selection of persons and relaxation in the qualification, is given to the persons of the reserved category, if the persons having the minimum qualification, are available, their merit will have to be considered on the basis of the marks, obtained by them in the examination, which is required to be passed for obtaining the minimum qualification and preference cannot be given to those, who do not have the minimum prescribed qualification, but who are eligible on the basis of the relaxed qualification.
In these circumstances, the petitioner, who, admittedly, had the minimum qualification, prescribed for admission to the course and was at S. No. 2, in the category of the dependents of deceased Govt. Servants, could not be denied admission on the ground that the marks, obtained by him in the Hr. Secondary Examination, were to be taken into consideration and not the marks, obtained in the Sr. Secondary Examination. The criterion, applied by the respondents, has resulted into injustic to the petitioner, who has been wrongfully denied admission to the course concerned."
6. In the case in hand, the marks for admission which have been considered are Secondary Examination and not of Sr. Secondary Examination. The present case is fully covered by the Judgment of learned single Judge in Krishna Kumar's case (supra).
7. The learned single Judge in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2741/95, while considering the Judgment in Krishna Kumar's case (supra) had observed that Krishna Kumar's case is not applicable to the case in hand. To our considered opinion and with apologies, this observation of learned single Judge is not tenable. The case of Krishna Kumar (supra) is fully applicable to the present case and we also approve the same.
8. The merit is bound to be prepared of each reserved category taking into account the minimum prescribed qualification and not on the relaxed qualifications. This also finds force from the fact that while giving relaxation to woman and SC category etc. under Rule 9, it has been specifically mentioned that if the candidates belonging to such category having prescribed minimum qualifications are not available, then the candidates having Secondary Examination qualification can also apply. The only concession which has been given is the eligibility concession and in no case, it could be interpreted that against those very vacancies, falling in the same reserved quota, the candidates having prescribed qualifications are to be ignored in favour of candidates who possess less qualifications. The instructions nowhere prescribe that the merit is to be prepared on the basis of secondary Examinations. The learned single Judge in impugned order has wrongly held that merit is to be prepared not on the prescribed qualification, but on the relaxed qualifications. If this view is upheld, it shall be giving a licence not to the inefficiency only but also to the standard of education which is to be acquired by the candidates in STC course.
9. To our mind, if the candidates having prescribed qualification i.e. Sr. Secondary Examination qualification or 10 + 2 qualifications are available against the reserved quota, the merit list is to be prepared on that prescribed qualification and not on relaxed qualification. The relaxed qualifications are meant only for the purpose of eligibility and merit on relaxed qualification can be prepared when the candidates having prescribed qualifications are not available against the reserved category.
10. In view of the above, the judgment of learned single Judge dated 6-5-96 is set aside and the judgment of learned single Judge in Krishna Kumar's case (supra) is approved. We are also inclined to give the same direction as was given in the case of Krishna Kumar (supra) that the petitioner/appellant shall be admitted to 2 years' STC course forthwith commencing in the year 1996. At the bar, it has been stated that the course was to start on 1-10-1996, therefore, a direction is given that petitioner would be admitted in the course for the year 1996 without his merit being considered with the applicants who applied for being admitted to that course.
11. In the result, the Judgment of learned single Judge dated 6-5-96 passed in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2741 of 1995 is set aside and the writ petition is allowed with costs, of Rs. 1,000/- with the relief as mentioned above.