Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Proficiency computer in Hukma Ram Bishnoi vs State & Ors on 15 July, 2016Matching Fragments
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.
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:-
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.
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 allowed.