SORAJ MEENA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court being dissatisfied and aggrieved by the action of the respondents in denying him appointment to the post of Gram Sevak cum Paden Sachiv despite having secured the requisite number of marks for being appointed on the said post.

(2.) Facts in brief are that 650 posts of Gram Sevak cum Paden Sachiv were advertised by of an advertisement (Annex. 3). Out of 650 posts, 12.5% seats were reserved for candidates falling in the category of Ex-serviceman. The petitioner an Ex-serviceman and after having taken retirement from the Army, he applied against the said post in the District Bhilwara in pursuance of the said advertisement and secured 93.675% marks in the written examination. The result of the successful candidates was declared and a merit list (Annex. 2) was published. The petitioner claims that he was utterly surprised to find that his name was not amongst the list of the selected candidates for the District Bhilwara despite the fact that three candidates, whose names appear at Sr. Nos. 15, 24 and 29 of the merit list, were given appointment against the posts reserved for the Ex-serviceman even though they had secured lesser marks as compared to him. Accordingly, the petitioner has approached this Court assailing the unjust and arbitrary action of the respondents in depriving him of appointment despite candidates, having secured lesser number of marks being appointed in the same selection process. Whilst entertaining the writ petition, this Court passed an order dated 28.3.2011 directing that the selection process shall be subject to the final decision of the instant writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the intimation given to the petitioner, the sole reason for non-inclusion of his name in the merit list is that the certificate of graduation dated 30.6.2004 issued to him by the Armed Forces Services was not considered valid for being appointed against the advertised posts. Learned counsel submits that only qualification which was mentioned in the advertisement as eligibility criterion was that the candidate concerned should be a graduate. He contends that the certificate of graduation held by the petitioner is equivalent to a graduation certificate issued by any recognized educational institution as was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Executive Officer, NSSO & Ors. Vs. Biswa Bhusan Nandi, 2008 AIR(SCW) 6472. He submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court approved the view taken by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court that the graduation certificate issued by the Armed Forces Services to an Ex-serviceman having undergone matriculation course and after having put in more than 15 years of service puts him at par with those having graduation. Learned counsel submits that admittedly, the petitioner had passed Sr. Secondary Examination and was issued the graduation certificate (Annex. 4) after having put in nearly 16 years of service in the Armed Forces. Thus, relying on the aforesaid Supreme Court Judgment, he contends that the petitioner was holding the requisite eligibility criterion for being appointed as a Gram Sevak cum Paden Sachiv and prays that the writ petition be accepted and the respondents be directed to give appointment to the petitioner in the said selection process with all consequential benefits.