Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chaina Ram vs State & Ors on 24 November, 2008
Author: Govind Mathur
Bench: Govind Mathur
1
S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3825/2008
Chaina Ram
v.
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Date of Order :: 24 th November, 2008
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR
Mr. Y.P.Khileree for the petitioner.
Mr. Alkesh Agarwal ]
Mr. Kanhaiyalal Prajapat] for the respondents.
....
By notification dated 21.1.2008 the Additional District Programme Coordinator-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur invited
applications from eligible candidates to be considered for appointment as Gram Rojgar Sahayak under the Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme introduced as per the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2005"). The petitioner as well as respondent No.6 Shri Kailash submitted applications to be considered for appointment on the post aforesaid, and in the provisional select list made in order of merit the petitioner and the respondent Shri Kailash were placed at Serial No.1 and No.11 respectively. The merit marks determined for the petitioner, in the list aforesaid are shown as 62.46, whereas the same for the respondent are given as 43.38. Being selected as Gram 2 Rojgar Sahayak the petitioner reported in office of the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Degana on 17.4.2008, however, prior to that on 16.4.2008, the respondent No.6 submitted an application to the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur pointing out therein an error occurred in the select list about non inclusion of the marks for him relating to the Below Poverty Line (hereinafter referred to as "BPL") category. On receiving the complaint, a notice was issued and an opportunity of hearing was allowed to the petitioner as well as to the respondent No.6. It was found by a competent committee that the respondent No.6 was entitled to receive 20 marks being a member of BPL category and by awarding that he was placed at Serial No.1 in the revised select list issued on 15.5.2008, accordingly, appointment of the petitioner was cancelled and the same was accorded to the respondent No.6.
Aggrieved by the same, this petition for writ is preferred with the allegation that 20 marks against BPL category are erroneously extended to the respondent No.6 by the respondent No.4 Shri Nathu Ram Prajapat, Additional District Collector, Deedwana, who was said to be present in the meeting examining complaint of the respondent No.6. It is stated that the respondent No.4 is in close relation of respondent No.6 and also coming from the same caste. It is also stated by counsel for the petitioner that the 3 respondent No.6 did not submit any certificate regarding his placement in BPL category and as such there was no occasion to award 20 marks for such categorisation. The petitioner is also claiming for two marks being having some qualification in computer education.
In reply to the writ petition it is stated that the petitioner as well as the respondent No.6 both did not submit any certificate regarding their belonging to BPL category, however, due to availability of the BPL list 2002 with the Zila Parishad, their cases were considered and the marks were awarded accordingly. The 20 marks were not given to the respondent No.6 erroneously and on knowing about that the error occurred was rectified. It is also pointed out by counsel for the respondent Zila Parishad that the Additional District Magistrate Shri Nathu Ram was not present on 2.5.2008 in the meeting of the committee that examined the complaint. A statement of attendance is also placed on record, as per that Shri Nathu Ram, Additional District Magistrate was on leave from 1.5.2008 to 9.5.2008. So far as consideration regarding computer training availed by the petitioner is concerned, it is stated that no evidence in this regard was submitted by the petitioner alongwith the application submitted to be considered for appointment as Gram Rojgar Sahayak. 4
In rejoinder nothing is said about foundation to allege the relationship of respondent No.6 with respondent No.4. On asking also, counsel for the petitioner utterly failed to satisfy about the source and foundation to make the averments in sub- para (1) of the grounds clause of the petition for writ, in the terms "that the respondent Nathu Ram Prajapat has acted showing a total hostility and discrimination to the petitioner being completely biased and interested in selecting respondent Kailash Chand as he belongs to his community and is near relative."
Heard counsel for the parties.
The first contention of counsel for the petitioner is that respondent Shri Kailash was not entitled for receiving 20 marks against belonging to BPL category as no certificate or evidence otherwise was submitted by him alongwith the application submitted in pursuant to the notification dated 21.1.2008.
In reply to the writ petition it is stated by the respondents that the Zila Parishad was having a BPL list 2002 and, therefore, on basis of placement of incumbents in that list marks were awarded to various candidates including the petitioner. It is also stated by the respondents that the petitioner too did not 5 file any certificate regarding his belonging to the BPL category. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that respondent Kailash belongs to the BPL category and his name was placed in BPL list 2002 and as such awarding 20 marks to him on that count is just and proper. The denial for those marks to the respondent No.6 was an error and the respondents rectified the same by acting upon a complaint submitted by him. While doing so an opportunity of hearing was also given to the petitioner.
It is really sad state of affairs that the petitioner without having any foundation levelled allegations of malafides upon a public servant regarding castism and giving benefit to respondent No.6 being his relative. As a matter of fact there is nothing on record to substantiate the allegation levelled. It is also pertinent to note that the counsel for the respondent No.6 in quite unambiguous terms stated before the Court that the respondent No.6 is having no relation what to talk of near relation with the respondent No.4. The allegation made by the petitioner in writ petition, therefore, is absolutely ill-founded and deserves to be deprecated.
So far as the non-grant of two marks to the petitioner for computer training is concerned, that too is not wrong as admittedly no certificate or evidence otherwise was submitted to the respondents 6 alongwith the application form submitted in pursuant to the notification dated 21.1.2008. In absence of such information, there was no occasion for granting two marks to the petitioner. It is also relevant to note that the competent committee which was considering the complaint submitted by the respondent No.4 and the claim made by the petitioner for grant of two marks, also not found the certificate submitted by the petitioner confidence worthy.
In view of whatever discussed above, the petition for writ is having no merit, hence dismissed. The petitioner levelled reckless and ill-founded allegation against a public servant, thus, he is saddled with a cost of Rs.2000/- which is required to be deposited by him with Zila Parishad, Nagaur within a period of three months from today.
( GOVIND MATHUR ),J.
kkm/ps.