Mahendra Bishnoi vs State & Ors on 17 August, 2016

[Cites 3, Cited by 1]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mahendra Bishnoi vs State & Ors on 17 August, 2016

The matter is today listed on I.A. No.3859/2016 filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner for deciding the writ petition in light of the judgment dated 15.7.2016 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.317/2016 "Hukma Ram Bishnoi Vs. State & Ors."

The short controversy, which is involved in the instant writ petition is as to whether the petitioner, who applied for W.P.No.370 of 2015 Mahendra Bishnoi Vs. State & Ors.

appointment as a Constable (GD) in the recruitment initiated under the recruitment notification dated 28.9.2012 is entitled to claim the benefit of one bonus mark on the basis of the computer efficiency certificate acquired by him belatedly.

The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Hukma Ram Bishnoi's case (supra) considered the exactly the same controversy and held as below:

"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 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 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.

W.P.No.370 of 2015

Mahendra Bishnoi Vs. State & Ors.

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....."

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."

After making the above discussion, the Hon'ble Division Bench concluded as below:

"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 allowed."

Shri Vinay Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioner urges W.P.No.370 of 2015 Mahendra Bishnoi Vs. State & Ors.

that the facts being exactly identical, the petitioner is also entitled to the same relief as was extended to Hukma Ram Bishnoi and the respondents be mandated to consider the petitioner's case for appointment as a Constable (GD) in the questioned recruitment process by giving him benefit of one bonus mark for his computer efficiency, the certificate whereof was issued to the petitioner belatedly by the authorities concerned.

Ms.Sweta Bora learned counsel representing the respondents is not in a position to dispute the fact that the controversy examined by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Hukma Ram Bishnoi's case (supra) and the case in hand, is exactly identical. Thus, the Hon'ble Division Bench having ruled in favour of the writ petitioner therein after appreciating the very same set of facts, the petitioner is also entitled to the same relief.

Consequently, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The respondent authorities are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner by granting him benefit of bonus mark for the computer proficiency certificate 'RS-CIT' held by the petitioner. The required action shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of submission of copy of this order and a reasoned order be passed in relation thereto within the above period.

No order as to costs.

( SANDEEP MEHTA ),J.

/tarun/

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur