VINOD KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner Vinod Kumar Sharma feeling aggrieved by the action of the respondent refusing to appoint him on the post of L. D. C in spite of his selection by Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short-RPSC ). The RPSC conducted Lower Divisional Clerk Joint Competitive Examination-1986 and an advertisement to this effect was issued by RPSC in 1986.

(2.) SHRI R. D. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was fully eligible to apply for such appointment. A copy of the information booklet issued by RPSC has been placed on record at Annexure-5. Clause-10 of the said information booklet would clearly indicate that those possessing the qualification of high school or secondary school certificate from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan or any other equivalent qualification from any University or Board would be eligible to apply for such appointment. The petitioner had passed the High School Examination from Board of High School and Intermediate Education, UP, conducted by Madyamic Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh in the year 1979. Copies of the marksheet dt. 25. 7. 79 and certificate issued to the petitioner on 12. 7. 97 are enclosed with the petition. The petitioner thereafter passed intermediate examination from the same Board in the year 1981. Copy of the mark sheet dated 2. 7. 81 and the certificate of having passed such examination dated 26. 6. 81 have been placed on record with the petition. The RPSC scrutinised the application forms and thereafter permitted the petitioner to appear in the aforesaid competitive examination. There was some controversy in regard to appointment of those selected in the recruitment process of 1986 conducted by RPSC and the Hon'ble Supreme Court ultimately directed the Government to give appointment to some of the selected candidates who were earlier not appointed and such direction was issued in regard to the petitioner as well. The District Education Officer (Secondary), Jhunjhunu by his letter dated 2. 5. 2000 required the petitioner to appear before him along with the certificates of his educational qualification, age relaxation, if any claimed, medical certificate issued from competent medical authority and character certificate issued by two Gazetted Officers, for his appointment. The petitioner was required to appear before the District Education Officer on 15. 5. 2000. The petitioner appeared before the District Education Officer and produced the certificates of his qualification such as high school certificate and intermediate examination certificate along with other educational certificates referred to supra, yet the appointment order was not issued to the petitioner. He thereafter submitted representations to the respondents on 1. 9. 2000, 11. 9. 2000 and 14. 9. 2000 followed by the representation dated 27. 9. 2000. Ultimately, he approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition on 30. 1. 2001.

(3.) IN my considered view, therefore, the refusal by the respondents to appoint the respondents on the post of L. D. C. , in spite of the equivalent qualification possessed by him, is nothing but an arbitrary and colourable exercise of power and is wholly illegal and unconstitutional being violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of INdia. The petitioner is therefore held entitled to appointment on the post of L. D. C. w. e. f. 15. 5. 2000, the date on which such appointments were made by District Education Officer, Jhunjhunu. However, since this matter has remained pending before this Court for so long and the petitioner has not actually been required to discharge the duties of the said post, he should now get only notional benefits for the intervening period including the benefit of seniority and any other right based on such seniority and addition of increments and revision of pay etc. would be reserved to him.