Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The petitioner has to his credit the degree of B.A. and B.P. Ed., which make him eligible for appointment on the post of Physical Teacher Gr. III. The respondents issued an advertisement on 19th April, 1997 inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment of 22 posts of Physical Teacher Gr. III. As usual, the advertisement also stated that reservation shall be provided to candidates of various categories as per policy of the State Government. The petitioner also applied for appointment seeking reservation being an O.B.C. candidate. The criteria then made applicable was that the candidates who are resident of the same district shall be entitled to an additional weightage of 10% of marks and also weightage of 5% of marks shall be given to the candidates having sports certificate of district level. With extra 10% marks added for domicile, the name of the petitioner was placed in the merit list and total marks were 68%. In the same merit however respondent No. 3 Ranjeet Singh was placed at serial No. 1 with his percentage of marks being 74.44% which obviously also included the weightage of 10% given to him for being domicile of district Rajsamand. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No. 3 Ranjeet Singh in fact is a resident of village Barakhan of tehsil Beawar in district Ajmer and the names of his father and mother have been shown at serial No. 437 and 438 in part No. 128 of the voters list of that village issued in the year 1998. He however obtained a false domicile certificate showing himself to be resident of village Bali Jassi Khera of district Rajsamand only with a view to securing extra weightage of 10%. When the petitioner came to know about this, he submitted a representation to the District Collector, Rajsamand. The respondent No. 3 was not allowed to join his duties. If the weightage of 10% of marks given to respondent No. 3 Ranjeet Singh is withdrawn, he would be left with only 64.44% of marks in the merit list, which is far less than the petitioner's marks at 68%. Hence this writ petition.

4. Initially the respondents came out with a plea that appointment of the respondent No. 3 Ranjeet Singh was withheld on receipt of the complaint. An order to this effect was passed by the District Education Officer, Rajsamand on 25.3.1998. He later called upon respondent No. 3 Ranjeet Singh to clarify as to why he submitted the domicile certificate issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bheem, district Rajsamand while applying for appointment on the post of Physical Teacher Gr. III whereas when he applied for appointment on the same post under District Education Officer, Ajmer, he enclosed the domicile certificate issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Beawar, district Ajmer in which he was certificate to be a bona fide resident of district Ajmer. He was therefore required to clarify this anomaly by 3.11.2003 else ex-parte decision would be taken in the matter. Simultaneously, District Education Officer, Rajsamand by letter dated 15.10.2003 also required Sub Divisional Magistrate of both the places to clarify the position. When respondent No. 3 appeared before the District Education Officer on 3.11.2003 he clarified that although he was a resident of Bally Jassikheda, district Rajsamand and that his father has already submitted an application on 7.7.1997 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Beawar for cancellation of his domicile certificate obtained from there. He produced a copy of such application dated 7.7.1997. The District Education Officer, Rajsamand sent one Shri Pradeep Kumar Kataria, L.D.C. in his office to Beawar for verification of this fact with a letter addressed to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Beawar. The reader of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Beawar endorsed a report on such communication that the office of Assistant Collector was newly created at Beawar in April, 1994 and was later shifted to Masooda as Sub Divisional Headquater. Records relating thereto were transferred to Masooda in June, 1994 which now falls in district Ajmer. Reader had to give this report because Presiding Officer was on leave. The Sub Divisional Officer, Bheem in his letter dated 7.11.2003 addressed to District Education Officer, Rajsamand however informed that the domicile certificate was issued to the petitioner on 4.2.1997 not he basis of certificate of residence given by Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Bally, Ration Card issue by Tehsildar, Bheem and caste certificate issued from Tehsildar, Bheem. It was thereafter that the District Education Officer, Rajsamand again by his letter dated 14.11.2003 requested the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Beawar to provide demanded information as to verification of the domicile certificate issued form his office. The respondents have also stated that even after withdrawal of appointments given to respondent No. 3 Ranjeet Singh and No. 4 Mithu Singh, no relief can be granted to the petitioner because he stood at serial No. 20 in the merit list. The respondents have placed on record a lost in which the name of the petitioner appears at serial No. 20 and sufficient number of O.B.C. candidates in this merit list were otherwise available and having securing more marks than the petitioner found their placement above him in the merit. It has been submitted that although 22 vancancies were advertised as anticipated and expected vacancies but in fact that was not the exact number of vacancies which actually became available. The fact was that only 10 vacant posts were available on which the appointment have already been made. Even otherwise life of the select list expired on 31.3.1998. It has therefore been prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed.

14. Now I come to the question whether in the facts of the present case, the conduct of the petitioner securing two domicile certificate for appointment on the post of Physical Teacher Gr. III under two districts namely Rajsamand and Ajmer was such as to dis-entitle him to appointment at any of the places. Facts which have come on record although proves that the respondent No. 3 initially secured a domicile certificate from Sub Divisional Magistrate, Beawar on 28.6.1994 and later he secured such similar certificate from Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bheem on 4.2.1997. But there has been no denial of the fact that the petitioner's ancestral house is situated at Bally Jassikhera where he studied up to 10th standard while residing with his grand mother. He had his name included in the Ration Card of the family, the resident certificate issued by Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of that village and caste certificate issued by Tehsildar, Bheem. The respondent No. 3 has also satisfactorily explained as to on what basis he had secured earlier bona fide certificate from Sub Divisional Magistrate, Beawar on 28.6.1994. His father had through out his carrear of 31 years served at village Barakhara, Taragarh and Barakhan, all of which are situated within a close distance from one another and had constructed a house at Barakhan. His father in fact submitted an application on 7.7.1997 to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Beawar for cancellation of the bona fide certificate issued by his office. There has been no denial to this fact even by the government before this Court. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner which he has sought to base on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Dharampal Singh v. State of Rajasthan (supra) is that securing employment on the basis of domicile certificate of Rajsamand even when the petitioner had already earlier secured such similar certificate from Beawar should be considered suppression of material fact amounting to moral turpitude and therefore should dis-entitle him to appointment. The facts in the aforementioned case were entirely different. In that case, candidates had applied for appointment on the post of constable in civil police which are responsible for maintenance of law and order. There was a specified column No. 17 in the application form as to if the candidate was involved in a criminal case or was arrested in a criminal case or was convicted in a criminal case. Rule 15 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 which came up for consideration of the Court in that case clearly provided that if a candidate is found guilty of suppression of material information, he may, in additional to rendering himself liable to criminal prosecution can either be de-barred permanently or for specified period by government from employment under the government. On verification however it transpired that petitioners in that case were involved either in a criminal case or were facing trial. Some of them were arrested in connection with such criminal cases and had even been convicted. These candidates had completely suppressed this material information in their application form in spite of being pointedly required to state the correct facts. It was in that context that Full Bench held that:

15. The present one is entirely different case where the petitioner has applied for appointment on the post of Physical Teacher Gr. III enclosing therewith the domicile certificate of district Rajsamand which was issued on the basis of the certificates given by Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Bally Jassikhera, Ration Card issued by Tehsildar, Bheem and caste certificate issued by Tehsildar, Bheem. He initially secured one domicile certificate from Sub Divisional Magistrate Beawar but thereafter another domicile certificate was secured from district Rajsamand. But his father later applied for cancellation of his earlier certificate on 7.7.1997. Although, securing another domicile certificate from Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bheem inspite of having secured such similar certificate from Beawar on 28.6.1994 may be termed an over jealous approach on the part of the respondent No. 3, it could not be established that certificate secured from the Rajsamand was completely unfounded because respondent No. 3 had an ancestral house at that place where he studied upto 10th standard while residing with his grand mother. Procuring initial domicile certificate from Sub Divisional Magistrate, Beawar then another domicile certificate from Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bheem appears to have been motivated by his desire to secure employment which is so difficult to get in these days. But the facts remains that when already respondent No. 3 has applied for cancellation of earlier certificate and on inquiry by the respondents it was proved that the certificate secured by him later was not completely unfounded and had some basis of his having routes in village Bally Jassikhera where he had his ancestral property and received earlier education while living with his grant mother, action of the respondent No. 3 cannot be taken at a level of concealment of fact so as to constitute moral turpitude to now justify annulment of his appointment after he has already served the respondents for five years. Even otherwise, with appointments having been restricted to only ten and the petitioner's placement in merit being at serial No. 22, he cannot get appointment even after exclusion of the respondent No. 3 from the merit lit.