HAR KARAN RAM BUGALIA Vs. STATE & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the notification dated 30.10.2006, applications were invited by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission from the eligible aspirants for appointment to the post of Teacher Grade III in primary/upper primary schools in the State of Rajasthan. In the notification aforesaid, it was made clear that persons appearing in the qualifying examination may face the process of selection but they have to acquire the qualification aforesaid before 16.3.2007. The petitioner at the time of submitting application form in prescribed proforma was undergoing the course of bachelor in education result of which was declared on 01.3.2007 by Choudhary Charan Singh University, Merath. His result was withheld as he failed to submit his migration certificate to the University aforesaid. On submitting the migration certificate, result of the appellant petitioner was declared on 24.3.2007. Subsequent to that on 12.1.2008 the District Education Officer-cum-Additional Chief Executive Officer (Elementary Education), Zila Parishad, Jodhpur provided appointment to 40 persons as Teacher Grade III as a consequence to the process of selection initiated under the notification dated 30.10.2006. The appellant petitioner immediately thereafter submitted representation with the respondent with an assertion that he is entitled for appointment as a person less meritorious to him was employed to the post of as Teacher Grade III. The appointment, however, was not accorded to him as the verification of his qualification was then pending. The respondents after getting the qualification of the petitioner verified from the aforesaid University i.e. Choudhary Charan Singh University, Merath accorded appointment to him as Teacher Grade-III under an order dated 20.7.2011 passed by the District Education Officer-cum-Executive Chief Officer (Elementary Education), Zila Parishad, Jodhpur. By way of submitting a representation to the respondents the petitioner urged for grant of service benefits including seniority and fixation of his pay from the date the same was given to other similarly situated persons including the person said to be less meritorious to him. On having no positive result on the part of the respondents the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing petition for writ that came to be dismissed by the judgment impugned dated 09.7.2014. The learned Single Bench while dismissing the petition for writ held that no service benefits can be extended to the appellant petitioner as whatever delay occurred in grant of appointment was not due to any lapse on the part of the respondents but for the time consumed in verification of the qualification possessed by the petitioner from the institution concerned.

(2.) In appeal, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant petitioner is that the appointment was accorded to him as a consequence to the process of selection initiated under the notification dated 30.10.2006 and therefore, his case cannot be distinguished with the case of the persons who were employed under order dated 12.1.2008. According to learned counsel, the delay in verification of the documents was occurred due to administrative reasons and not because of him, therefore, service benefits cannot be denied to him. It is submitted that if the respondents do not allow seniority to the petitioner as per his merit and also not make fixation of his pay from the date the persons junior to him were employed then the same shall be highly discriminatory.

(3.) While opposing the it is submitted by counsel for the respondents that the time consumed in verification of the documents is not a lapse on part of the respondent, therefore, no benefit as claimed can be given. As per the respondents, the learned Single Bench rightly arrived at the conclusion that the delay occurred in the matter was due to the time consumed in verification of the documents and that is not because of employer, therefore, the service benefits cannot be extended to the petitioner.