CHETAN PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition had been filed by the petitioner for consideration of his name for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr. II, which could not be done on account of the fact that his application for the same could not reach the appropriate authority on time as the application which was submitted by him through proper channel was not forwarded without any reason. It appears that the petitioner was working as Teacher Gr. III and having acquired the qualification of B. Ed. in the year 1987, in pursuance of an advertisement dated 17. 6. 1988, applied for consideration for appointment as Teacher Gr. II which application had to reach through proper channel on or before 15. 7. 1988. The petitioner filed the application in the office of the Panchayat Samiti, Bari on 5. 07. 1988 which was subsequently transferred to Zila Parishad, Dholpur on the same day. The application was then forwarded from Zila Parishad, Dholpur to the Joint Director (Male), Education, Ajmer Circle, Jaipur after expiry of the last date for submission of such applications i. e. 18. 07. 1988. The petitioner appears to have suffered as his name could not be considered for such appointment even though on his part he had submitted the requisite application well within time. On a perusal of the reply filed on behalf of the State, the only objection which has been raised for petitioner's non- consideration is that he did not submit his application through proper channel within time. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this objection raised on behalf of the respondents is wholly unsustainable as the Sr. Deputy District Education Officer, Zila Parishad, Dholpur has himself issued a certificate as contained in Annex. 2 to this writ petition which certifies that the petitioner in fact had submitted his application on 5. 7. 1988 along with other 35 applications. Since the only objection in regard to the petitioner was the lacunae of non-submission of the application form within time. I feel it would be in the interest of justice to direct the authorities concerned to consider the petitioner's candidature for the said appointment. Shri Pekar Farooq, learned Dy. Government Advocate has shown his concern that in the interest of the State he is suo moto appearing in the matter by virtue of his status as Deputy Government Advocate and informed that he has got authority to represent the State in any matter. He has accepted that it is unfortunate on the part of the concerned officer of the Zila Parishad not to have forwarded the application to the Joint Director (Male) on time so that it could reach the concerned authority on 15. 07. 1988. It is indeed unfortunate that even the matter which requires and urgent consideration is held up only on account of lapse of some officer who had only to play a middle-man's role of merely transmitting the application to the proper authority. But at the same time, I do not feel that the higher authorities should have waited for taking any action against such officer only if such act receives condemnation by a Court of law. It, therefore, appears that the authorities of the Zila Parishad have also been shutting their eyes to such lapse, which results in a chain of circumstances giving rise to red-tapism in the process. However, I do not wish to express more than what I have already recorded.

(2.) ADVERTING to the facts of this case, it may however be recorded that in the matter of Ram Bilash Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 780/1990, decided on 14. 2. 1991 (1) where Ram Bilash Sharma, petitioner in that case, was similarly placed, had been granted the relief by this court directing the authorities to consider his application as having been submitted within time and to consider his other eligibility according to rules. This Court, in the case of this petitioner, had passed an interim direction on 12. 2. 1990 directing the authorities to keep one post of Teacher Gr. II vacant so that the same could be filled up after the writ petitioner is decided. Under the circumstances and for the reasons stated hereinabove, it is directed that the petitioner's application submitted on 5. 7. 1988 for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr. II shall be treated as having been filed within time. The same shall, however, be considered on its merits and, if the petitioner fulfills all the qualifications and, if eligible for such appointment according to his merit, he shall be appointed. The intention of this court in this matter is only to protect his entitlement and not disqualify him merely on the sound of non-submission of the application form