Allowed

Kamal Kishore v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC14 May 2013CW/6734/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought appointment as Teacher Grade-III, claiming denial of five bonus marks for a President's Rover certificate. The High Court held the denial unsustainable in law, allowed the writ, and directed the State to award the marks and grant appointment retroactively from the date of the last appointment, pending production of the original certificate.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner entitled to five bonus marks for President's Rover certificate; appointment granted if he falls within merit from the date of last appointment; future salary and benefits included.

Kamal Kishore Vs State and Ors. — Education and Admissions | Rajasthan HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6734/2003 (Kamal Kishore Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.)

¶4

Date of Order : 14.05.2013

¶5

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

¶6

Mr. Rakesh Arora with Mr. Vipul Singhvi, for the petitioner. Mr. Hemant Choudhary, Govt. Counsel.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶8

In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondents to provide appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III after awarding five marks for his President's Rover certificate from the date the candidate having less number of marks have been provided appointment.

¶9

As per facts of the case, in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the respondents for recruitment on the post of Teacher Grade-III, the petitioner being eligible and possessing B.A. B.Ed qualification submitted an application form for considering his candidature for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III.

¶10

¶11

As per petitioner the petitioner was possessing certificate of Rajasthan State Board of Scout and Guide has also certificate of President's Rover but the respondents denied five marks for the certificate of of President's Rover which is placed on record as Annexure-4 issued on 24.12.1986 under the signature of His Excellency the President of India Shri Gyani Jail Singh.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per para 8 of the reply, the respondents provided appointment to the candidates having 59.61% marks but denied appointment to the petitioner on the ground that after compliance of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kailash Chandra's case the bonus marks for bonafide resident were deducted, therefore, the petitioner got 56.28% marks, which is less than 59.61% marks, therefore, no appointment can be given to the petitioner.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is out of imagination that a candidate possessing certificate issued by His Excellency the President of India will not file the same for which five marks are provided for assessing merit of the candidates for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III.

¶14

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner further invited attention of this Court that although in reply to para 8 of the writ petition, it is specifically denied by the respondents that such certificate was produced by the petitioner but in rejoinder, the said fact is refuted by the petitioner and submitted that contention of not filing certificate of President's Rover is totally wrong, therefore, petitioner is claiming five bonus marks prescribed for the certificate of President's Rover, which is illegally denied to him. In view of above, it is prayed that respondents may kindly be directed to grant five marks and after adding five marks his merit may be re-assessed and appointment may be provided from the date, the candidates having lesser percentage of marks is appointed.

¶16

Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that petitioner is not entitled for five marks for the simple reason that the relevant certificate was not annexed with the application form, therefore, at the time of preparing merit of the petitioner, five marks were not awarded to him, therefore, he secured 56.28% marks only, which is less than the marks of the candidate provided appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III.

¶17

According to respondent's counsel, no case is made

¶18

¶19

out for interference because after compliance of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kailash Chandra Sharma and the judgment passed by Larger Bench of this Court in case of Deepak Kumar Suthar, the merit was prepared afresh in which the petitioner secured 56.28% marks, which is less than 59.61% marks , therefore, this writ petition may be dismissed. It is also submitted that now currency of merit list has expired, therefore, obviously no appointment can be made on the post of Teacher Grade-III.

¶20

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, first of all undisputably, there is judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case of Mandeep Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. reported in 2004 (3) CDR 2251 (Raj.) in which it has been held that the candidate who is possessing certificate of President's Rover issued by His Excellency the President of India is entitled to get five marks and respondents are not disputing the above position with regard to five marks for the certificate of President's Rover but specifically pleaded in the reply that such certificate was not produced. In the opinion of this Court when respondents are not disputing the genuineness of the certificate issued by His Excellency the President of India in the year 1986 and the State Government vide Annexure-6 gave direction to the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Chittorgarh to consider the

¶21

¶22

said certificate then obviously case of the petitioner was to be considered for grant of five marks at the time of preparing merit list.

¶23

In view of above, the denial of five marks upon the certificate Annexure-4 is not sustainable in law. The petitioner is very much entitled for five bonus marks for certificate of President's Rover, meaning thereby if those five marks are added to the 56.28% marks of petitioner then his percentage of marks goes to 61.28% marks and last appointment was given to the candidate having 59.61% marks which is less than the petitioner, therefore, obviously, the petitioner is required to be considered higher in merit.

¶24

On the basis of above discussions, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant five marks to the petitioner for certificate issued by His Excellency the President of India for President's Rover (Annex.6) and after calculating those marks if petitioner falls in merit then the petitioner may also be provided appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III from the date when less meritorious candidate was provided appointment. It is made it clear that the petitioner will not be entitled for any monitory benefits till today but he will be entitled to get salary from the date of this judgment with all other consequential

¶25

¶26

benefits including seniority. It is expected from the respondents that necessary orders will be issued within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is also made it clear that original certificate issued by His Excellency the President of India for President's Rover shall be produced before the respondents by the petitioner.

¶27

(Gopal Krishan Vyas), J.

¶28

arun

Kamal Kishore v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Kishore v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muni Shri Kamal Vijayji Vs Municipal Board, Mount Abu. and Anr.

Smt. Deoo Vs State of Raj. and Ors.

A C T O Vs M/S Vizirchand Karamchand

Ieram Bhati Vs State and Anr.

Kamal Din Vs State and Ors.

Mohan Lal Vs Prem Shankar and Ors.