SHRI RAM CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this writ petition the petitioner has raised the grievance against the exclusion of his name from the merit list which was prepared in December, 1988 for the purpose of appointment to the post of Senior Teacher (Teacher grade II) in the matter of selection held by the respondents. The petitioner holds qualification B. Sc. , M. A. and B. Ed. He was initially appointed as teacher grade II in Panchayat Samiti, Bassi on 18. 11. 1985 and by the time recruitment was held for appointment for the post of Senior Teacher in accordance with the Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules 1971 he had already gained teaching experience for more than three sessions. Under the Rules of 1971 the Government had issued general instructions which were published in the Shivira (Shiksha Vibhag Rajasthan) 1986 and the relevant portion thereof has been placed on record as Annexure-2 The notice inviting applications dated 9/6/88 Annexure-3 was issued by the respondents and the petitioner applied in response thereto for the post of Senior Teacher in the prescribed form through proper channel, his application was forwarded by the Vikas Adhikari Bassi to the Secretary Zila Parishad Jaipur and the Secretary Zila Parishad, Jaipur in turn forwarded this application to the Joint Director Educ-ation (Male) Ajmer Range Jaipur vide the letter dated 16. 7. 88. The merit list was placed on the notice Board of the office of the Joint Director Education Male Aimer Range, Jaipur on 14/12/88. It did not contain the name of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted representation dated 20/12/88 to the Joint Director. He did not receive any reply. He thereafter made an application to the respondent Mo. 2 dated 11/1/89 for supply of the copy of the merit list. This application was returned by the Deputy District Education Officer with a remark that the petitioner should show the purpose for which he wants the copy of this merit list The petitioner has stated that he came to know from the office of the respondent No. 2 that his marks for experience of three years service had not been taken into consideration and the same had resulted into the exclusion of his name from the merit list of the selected candidates. The petitioner immediately made representation on 12-1-1989 which was forwarded by the Secretary Zila Parishad Jaipur to the Joint Director Education (Male) Ajmer Range, Jaipur with the following remarks : "i suppose they should not have been deprived of the experience advantage. Please intimate me if there was other valid reason for this deprivation. "

(2.) THE petitioner has stated that the merit list was not made available to him despite his reminder but he has come to know that he should have shown at Sl. No. 53 in the merit list but he has not been included in the merit list because 5 marks of experience had not been added. THE respondent No. 2 then took steps for filling the post of Senior Teachers which had not been taken from December, 1988 to September, 1989 because of the 'ban' against appointments imposed by the Government and thereafter in September, 1989 when the petitioner found that the posts of Senior Teachers were going to be filled, he preferred the present writ petition on 23/9/1989. No reply to the writ petition has been filed despite the fact that the writ petition was admitted on 22-1-1991 after giving a show cause notice to the respondents on 29/9/1989 as to why this writ petition may not be admitted and disposed off and several and repeated opportunities have been granted. However, Mr. K. S. Rathore, Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the respondents has argued the matter and the only submission made by him is that the petitioner could not be given the credit of five marks of experience because the certificate of experience as contained in petitioner's application in the prescribed form signed by the Vikas Adhikari was not counter signed by the District Education Officer and in absence of such counter signature the petitioner's entitlement for the marks of experience was not entertained and consequently the petitioner did not stand in the merit.