Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hukma Ram Bishnoi vs State & Ors on 15 July, 2016
Bench: Navin Sinha, Pankaj Bhandari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
:: JUDGMENT ::
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.317/2016 Hukma Ram Bishnoi Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Date of Judgment : 15/07/2016.
P R E S E N T
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE Mr.NAVIN SINHA HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Mr.Deepak Bishnoi for the appellant. Mr.S.S.Ladrecha, Addl.Advocate General with Mr.Vikas Choudhary for the respondents.
- -
1. The present appeal arises from order dated 18.01.2016 dismissing S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6539/2013. The learned Single Judge held that the advertisement dated 28.09.2012 for recruitment to the post of Constables stipulated production of the computer proficiency certificate from the Rajasthan State Certificate Course in Information Technology (hereinafter referred to as 'RS-CIT') at the time of physical efficiency test.
The failure to do so disentitled him to the benefit of the same. The denial of appointment therefore called for no interference.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the advertisement stipulated that those who were undergoing the course were also eligible to appear but would have to produce certificate for having passed the course at the time of physical 2 efficiency test. The RS-CIT course is run by the State Government. He had appeared at the examination conducted by the Vardhman Mahaveer Open University, Kota on 09.01.2013.The University issued him a certificate confirming the same. The appellant submitted it at the time of physical efficiency test on 02.04.2013. The final pass certificate was issued by the authorities on 08.04.2013. The respondents have wrongly denied him one bonus mark for the RS-CIT qualification in which event he would secure 62.5 marks above the cut off 62.3 which makes him eligible to be considered for appointment. The appellant cannot be visited with consequences for reasons attributable to the authorities.
3. Learned counsel for the State submits that the order under appeal calls for no interference. The appellant admittedly failed to produce the final RS-CIT Certificate at the time of physical efficiency test on 02.04.2013 as required in the advertisement. The final certificate was itself issued on 08.04.2013.
4. We have considered the submissions.
5. The respondents published advertisement dated 28.09.2012 for appointment in the district police and the R.A.C. Battalion. The last date for applying was 06.11.2012. The essential condition of eligibility prescribed in the advertisement was was secondary school qualification or class-IX pass or equivalent from a recognized school and 3 for the latter class-VIII pass from a recognized school or Board. The note appended to it provided that those who had appeared at the qualifying examination and results were awaited could also appear subject to their producing the pass certificate at the time of physical efficiency test. The appellant indisputably possessed the minimum eligibility qualification before last date for applying. The advertisement also provided for special additional qualifications of N.C.C., Homeguard and Computer Proficiency. A maximum of two bonus marks could be awarded to those possessing the additional special qualification of proficiency in computers. The essential eligibility and special additional qualifications are entirely different concepts and have to be viewed separately. While there can be no relaxation with regard to the former except to the extent that the advertisement may prescribe, the same rigidity cannot be applied to the stipulation for special additional qualifications especially when the appellant had admittedly appeared at the RS-CIT examination before the date of physical efficiency test and had submitted proof of the same. The distinction was noticed in Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE, (2005) 9 SCC 779 in the following words:-
"7. The general rule is that while applying for any course of study or a post, a person must possess the eligibility qualification on the last 4 date fixed for such purpose either in the admission brochure or in application form, as the case may be, unless there is an express provision to the contrary. There can be no relaxation in this regard i.e. in the matter of holding the requisite eligibility qualification by the date fixed. This has to be established by producing the necessary certificates, degrees or marksheets. Similarly, in order to avail of the benefit of reservation or weightage, etc. necessary certificates have to be produced. These are documents in the nature of proof of holding of particular qualification or percentage of marks secured or entitlement to benefit of reservation. Depending upon the facts of a case, there can be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof and it will not be proper to apply any rigid principle as it pertains in the domain of procedure. Every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature."
The delay in issuance of the pass certificate was attributable to the authorities concerned and were totally beyond the control of the appellant. The observations in Charles K. Skaria v. C. Mathew (Dr), (1980) 2 SCC 752 are apposite in the facts of the case :
"24.....In actual life, we know how exasperatingly dilatory it is to get copies of degrees, decrees and deeds, not to speak of other authenticated documents like mark-lists from universities, why, even bail orders from courts and Government Orders from public offices....."5
There will have to be a distinction between a candidate who may not have appeared at the RS-CIT examination before the date of the physical efficiency test and one who had but production of pass certificate on the relevant date was beyond his control. In case of the former the condition in the advertisement will be mandatory but in the latter case directory as construed in Charles K. Skaria (supra). Possessing a qualification in computer proficiency was not an essential condition of eligibility but an additional qualification to avail bonus marks.
6. The appellant has qualified at all selection stages otherwise. The festering sense of injustice for which he finds himself at his wits end, still at the threshold of his career necessitates an interpretation which advances the cause of justice and does not stultify it devoid of life with aridity.
7. In Uma Shankar Sharma v. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 202 the appellant was appointed against the sports quota but terminated subsequently on the ground that he had been selected for inter university participation and had submitted the requisite certificate also but had not actually participated as he had fallen ill. Setting aside the termination it was observed as follows :-
"5......The terms and conditions of service are intended to be construed 6 reasonably, and too technical a view can defeat the essential spirit and intent embodied in them. The intention was to appoint meritorious sportsmen to the posts, and that object is served if a person who had qualified and was selected for representing his university in an Inter-University Tournament conducted by the Inter-University Sports Board is appointed, notwithstanding that he was actually prevented from participating because of reasons beyond his control."
8. Similarly in Mohammad Ayub v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2009) 17 SCC 70 the appellant who was a constable applied for medical certificate to be considered for appointment as Armourer in the PAC Battalion before the cutoff date for applying. The fitness certificate was however made available after the cut-off date because of intervening government holidays. The denial to consider for appointment on that ground was set aside.
9. The aforesaid discussion satisfies us to hold that the appellant has wrongly been denied consideration for grant of bonus marks for his special additional qualification of computer proficiency RS-CIT under the advertisement. The respondents are therefore required to consider his candidature for grant of bonus marks for the same in accordance with law. Let the same be done within six weeks from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order and appropriate reasoned order be passed within the same period. The order under appeal is set aside. The appeal is 7 allowed.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI), J. (NAVIN SINHA),CJ.
skant/-