MANISHABEN SHANKARLAL PATEL Vs. DISTRICT PRIMARY EDUCATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner is desirous of appointment on the posts of Primary Teacher. The petitioner was holding qualification of SSC/PTC when the notices inviting applications for the post of primary teachers were issued. The petitioner applied for the said post of primary teacher. The last date for submission of the application was 20th November 1991 It is the petitioners own case that on the said date that is till the last date of submitting the applications qualification held by her was SSC/PTC and at that time she did not possess qualification of TCWG. However by the time she was required to appear for interview for the said post of primary teacher in Sept. 1993 she had already passed the course of TCWG and her case is that on that basis she was entitled to two marks more in the process of selection for the post of assistant primary teacher. The petitioner had preferred petition being special civil application no. 7940 of 1992. In said petition the petitioner had also raised the question about the age to be taken on 1.7.1992 instead of 1.7 for the purpose of age limit as a condition of eligibility. The respondents considered the petitioner to be under-age by taking the date of 1.7.1991 on which age was to be seen. The Court while passing the order on 3rd December 1992 in the above special civil application No. 7940/92 made a reference to another case in Special Civil Application No. 2108 decided on 8.5.92 and held that the petitioners age shall be considered as on 1.7.92 for the purpose of eligibility and directed that the petitioner shall not be treated as under-age at the relevant time. In this special civil application No. 7940/92 question was also raised for two more marks for passing the course of TCWG. The Court recorded that subsequent to the date of application before holding the interview the petitioner had passed the TCWG Course and there was a provision for giving two marks more to those candidates who had passed the said examination. It was therefore directed that the petitioner may produce her mark sheet in respect of the said TCWG Examination before the respondents latest by 7th December 1992 and if the petitioner does so the respondents may consider whether she is entitled to be given two more marks for having passed the said examination of TCWG and if they come to the conclusion that she is not entitled to get two more marks on that count the respondents may consider her case on that basis. Accordingly the petitioner submitted her mark-sheet before the respondents on 4th December 1992 and claimed credit of two more marks but the respondents did not decide the controversy about giving of two marks more to the petitioner on this count and in the mean time without/deciding this controversy interviews were made to commence for the post of primary teacher but the petitioner was not called for interview. At this juncture on 21st September 1993 the petitioner moved this special civil application before this court with a prayer for the benefit of two additional marks for passing of the TCWG Examination and that she may be called for interview for the post of primary teacher. Notice of this petition was issued by this Court on 22nd September 1993 and rule was granted on 31st March 1995 and the matter was fixed for final hearing for to day that is 1 April 1995. The respondent No. 1 District Primary Education Officer has filed affidavit in reply in this petition in which it is stated that on the basis of the applications received on or before 20 November 1991 select list is already prepared and the petitioner is already on the select list. The respondents have called only those who were on the Select list. The Candidates were called for interview in three rounds. In the first round candidates having 77.28% or above were called for interview. In the second round candidates who secured 65.88% and above were called for interview. The interviews for the post in question were held on 30th Sept. 1993 1 October 1993 for 100 posts but the petitioner was not called for interview considering the percentage of her marks to be 64.46% only. In the reply objection about the age has also been taken although same has already been decided by this court earlier in a petition being special civil application no. 7940 of 1992. Therefore the only question to be decided by this Court in this petition is as to whether the respondents have rightly denied consideration of candidature to the petitioner by denying the benefit of two additional marks or the petitioner has been wrongly kept out of the race.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this controversy has already been decided by this court in a group matters that is special civil application Nos. 6273 6274 6333 to 6338 6559 to 6562 6881 6728 to 6742 6872 to 6882 6992 to 6996 7931 to 7936 8491 all of 1992 decided by this Court on December 28 1993 The parties are not at dispute that in this batch of special civil applications it has been held that even after the date of applications if the petitioner has passed any additional course before the date of interview credit for passing that course has to be given and if the petitioner is found to be possessing additional qualifications on the date of interview notwithstanding the fact whether such qualification was possessed by the candidate on the last date of making application or not benefit of allotted marks for such additional qualification has to be given. There is no dispute between the parties that at the time of making the application for the post of primary teacher in November 1991 the petitioner had already appeared in the Course of TCWG and was awaiting her result. Merely because the result was declared little late it would not be justified to deny the benefit for additional qualification for the post of primary teacher if the candidate is able to produce the mark sheet in token of her passing the examination at the time of interview. The petitioner had passed the course of TCWG in March 1992 and she had produced it before the authorities on 4th December 1992 as directed by this court in earlier petition being special civil application no. 7940 of 1992 decided on 3rd December 1992 In this view of the matter when the interviews commenced in the year 1993 and her name had already appeared in the select list she should have been called for interview and in case she was having 64.46 percentage of marks credit of two marks should have been given to her. Had such credit of two additional marks been given to her for passing the course of TCWG Examination her percentage would have been 66.46 which fact is not disputed by the respondents. It is stated in the affidavit in reply itself that the candidates who had obtained even 65.88% marks were called for interview and were appointed as primary teacher. It therefore goes as logical consequence that the credit of two marks for the qualification of TCWG to the petitioner should have been given so as to ensure the benefit of selection for appointment.