A coordinate bench judgment established that a B.E.(Computer) holder is eligible for the Computer post. The applicant approached this court seeking clarification on eligibility and directing authorities to reconsider his representation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writs No. 19716/2017
Sandeep Varma Son Of Shri Chothmal Varma, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of 3-B-17 Vigyan Nagar Kota (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.L. Dhakar For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA
Order
20/03/2018
Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, submits that the controversy raised in the instant writ application stands resolved in view of the adjudication made by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jeetesh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 13356/2016, decided on 20th December, 2016. The relevant part of the judgment in the case of Jeetesh Gupta (supra) reads thus:
“Before this court may proceed to examine the controversy raised in the instant proceedings, it will be appropriate to take note of the scheme of Rules.
Earlier the post of Computer was filled by direct recruitment through open selection or amongst employees of the Corporation having computer knowledge with Higher
(2 of 7)
[CW-19716/2017]
Secondary or three years service in the Corporation with computer knowledge were eligible for the post of Computer.
Later on amendment was made vide Notification dt.14.06.2013. The earlier eligibility & experience for direct recruitment and the present qualification for direct recruitment which is introduced after the amendment of 2013 being relevant for the present purpose is quoted ad infra:-
Apart from qualification which has been prescribed for direct recruitment for the post of Computer, the Corporation in its meeting held on 25.06.2010 framed separate Rules for Compassionate Appointment Rules, 2010 and amendment was made for appointment under the Compassionate Appointment Rules vide Notification dt.06.08.2013 and in furtherance thereto appointments are made on the post of Computer of dependents of deceased employee by various orders & most of them are holding the qualification of Bachelor in Computer Application
The particulars of such compassionate appointments are ad infra:-
All the above information has been obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005 from the respondent-Corporation.
26 posts of Computer came to be advertised initially by the respondents vide its Notification dt.24.06.2013 and the candidates who intended to participate in the selection process filled their application forms on-line and the recruiting authority after examining the suitability of the incumbents permitted to participate in the written examination followed with other test prescribed under the scheme of Rules and against 26 vacancies, 23 persons were found suitable and were offered appointment vide order dt.14.02.2014 and the petitioner’s name find place at S.No.5 in the order of merit and he was posted at Kota Depot but to his dismay at the time of verification of original testimonials, it was opined that he is not holding the requisite qualification & in consequence whereof without any opportunity being afforded to him, his appointment was cancelled vide order dt.20.03.2014 and the petitioner thereafter is running from pillar to post to
(3 of 7)
[CW-19716/2017]
justify his eligibility for the post of Computer. It is like that when the requirement for the post is Diploma in Civil/Mechanical/Electrical and the candidate is Degree holder in Civil/Mechanical/ Electrical and the recruiting authority is all the time harping upon saying that the requirement for the post is Diploma and since the candidate is having Degree in the subject is ineligible which on the face of it is fallacious.
If the requirement provided under the Rules is that a candidate who is holding degree of graduation in Statistics, Economics, Mathematics, Commerce or Science (Maths) with ‘O’ Level certificate of Computers is eligible for the post of Computer, this court finds no reason in holding that who is B.E. (Computer) ineligible for the post of Computer and the view of this court is further strengthen by the order dt.11.05.2016 passed by the coordinate Bench of this court in the earlier round of litigation that no reasoning is coming forward in not treating the degree of B.E.(Computer) which in the normal understanding inherently presupposes the fundamentals of Mathematics and when the degree of Mathematics or Science with Maths is treated to be a qualification, there is no reasoning put forth for declining the degree of B.E.(Computer) ineligible but as the coordinate Bench of this Court was reluctant to go ahead in directing the respondent-Corporation to consider the petitioner for appointment and left for the respondents to revisit the matter & pass a reasoned & speaking order regarding his eligibility and as usual no one in the respondent-Corporation took responsibility on his shoulders while re-visiting the matter in compliance of order of the coordinate Bench dt.11.05.2016 what was earlier expressed by the respondent-Corporation for cancellation of his appointment vide order dt.20.03.2014 and stated by the respondent in their counter affidavit, the same has been reiterated as verbatim by the respondent-Corporation while rejecting his representation submitted under the directions of the Court dt.11.05.2016 in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4219/2014 and rejected his representation vide order dt.27.07.2016.
(4 of 7)
[CW-19716/2017]
This kind of practice adopted by the respondent in dealing & re-visiting the matter independently with openness is completely eroded by passage of time and even in this case after the coordinate Bench of this court in its order dt.11.05.2016 left nothing and expressed its view about the qualification possess by the petitioner, left it open to the respondent-Corporation to re-consider the matter and pass reasoned & speaking order but no one paid heed to the representation and rejected mechanically and left the person in lurch with the opportunity to ventilate his grievance if it is found within the parameters of law but the underlined fact is, the Corporation is not ready to listen him with openness.
It is no doubt true that what should be the qualification for the post is completely within the domain of the employer and unless the person affected demonstrates with documentary evidence to support that the qualification prescribed for the post in question has no nexus at all or the qualification prescribed is wholly absurd, the question may be open for this court to consider within the limited scope of judicial review but in the given facts & circumstances, where the requirement laid down by the recruiting authority that holder of Degree in the subject Statistics, Economics, Mathematics, Commerce or Science (Maths) with ‘O’ Level certificate is the benchmark, this court finds no reason as to why a candidate like petitioner who is better qualified and B.E.(Computer) is not meeting out the eligibility requirement introduced after the amendment of 2013 and this is something which is not acceptable to a man of ordinary prudence.
On scrutiny of records, this court is of the view that the respondent-Corporation has not cared to examine the eligibility & qualification of the petitioner in compliance of order of the coordinate Bench dt.11.05.2016 and there is a complete nonapplication of mind in rejecting his candidature after he was finally selected & appointed vide order dt.20.03.2014 followed with consequential rejection of his representation vide order dt.27.07.2016. At the same time, the Corporation in its wisdom has put two separate qualifications for the post of Computer. For open selection,
(5 of 7)
[CW-19716/2017]
the qualification as laid down by the amendment Notification dt.14.06.2013, of which a detailed reference has been made at the same time for compassionate appointment candidate with degree in Computer Applications (BCA) (3 years) is eligible but B.E.(Computer) (4 years) is not eligible for the post of Computer.
This court is not able to persuade as to why a person with higher qualification of B.E.(Computer) is ineligible for the post of Computer vis-á-vis that of BCA but as already observed it is the normal practice the process which is initiated is so mechanical where everyone has to rush to the court for redressal of his legitimate grievance which can easily be ventilated at their own end and this is the reason, since no one in the present scenario is ready to take responsibility on his shoulders, rejection of representation under directions of this court is imperative and present is the instance where the petitioner is running from pillar to post to satisfy that his qualification is higher in comparison to what is expected for the post in question but no one is ready to listen and the authorities have turned down his request with deaf ears on the premise that the requirement for the post in question lays down the holder of degree in the subject Statistics, Economics, Mathematics, Commerce or Science (Maths) with ‘O’ Level certificate and a person hold B.E.(Computer) may be above the benchmark but not ready to take decision of holding higher qualifications than desirable is eligible to participate in the process of selection.
This is how mechanically the fate of an individual seeking public employment is being dealt with by the authorities with no sensitivity and the petitioner after succeeded in getting appointment vide order dt.14.02.2014 for full three years is unable to convince the authority that he is eligible and to expect that someone will come to his rescue and do justice with him. This court is firm & clear in its view that rejection of his candidature in holding him ineligible vide order dt.20.03.2014 and consequential order of rejection of his representation dt.27.07.2016 are completely with non-application of mind and arbitrary
(6 of 7)
[CW-19716/2017]
exercise of power of the respondent-Corporation, which cannot be countenanced by the court.
Consequently, the writ petition succeeds & is hereby allowed. The orders dt.23.03.2014 & 27.07.2016 are quashed & set aside and the respondent-Corporation is directed to permit the petitioner to join on the post of Computer pursuant to order of appointment dt.14.02.2014 and as he has not worked for the intervening period, he will be entitled for notional fixation of pay and not the actual salary for the intervening period for which he has not discharged his duties. Necessary compliance be made by the respondent-Corporation within four weeks. No costs.”
It is further urged that adjudication made in the case of Jeetesh Gupta (supra), has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court declining the intra-court appeal so also the Apex Court of the land declining the Special Leave to Petition.
It is further contended that for the present; the petitioner would be satisfied, if the State-respondents are directed to decide the representation of the petitioner, within a time frame, in the backdrop of the adjudication in the case of Jeetesh Gupta (supra), which he is ready and willing to address within two weeks hereinafter.
In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant writ proceedings are closed with a direction to the petitioner to address a comprehensive representation ventilating the grievances raised herein.
In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid period, the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. However, in no case later than ten weeks from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order.
(7 of 7)
[CW-19716/2017]
With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ application stands disposed off.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J
SS/246
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, holding a B.E.(Computer), is eligible for the post of Computer despite qualification rules specifying a degree in Statistics/Economics/Mathematics/Commerce/Science with O Level
Whether the respondents discharged their duty to reconsider the petitioner's representation and determine the original appointment order by a reasoned and speaking order.
Whether the High Court could direct the authorities to decide the representation expeditiously within a fixed time limit.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jeetesh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Relied on¶13
Jeetesh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 13356/2016
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sandeep Varma
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation
Veerendr Singh Siradhana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
