Krishan Murari Sharma and Others vs State of Raj. and Others

Veerender Singh Siradhana, J.—The petitioners having participated in the recruitment process for appointment to the post of Sanskrit Teacher Grade-III, in response to an advertisement dated 10th September, 2003, have approached this Court praying for the following relief(s):

"i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be commanded with a direction to award 3 bonus marks to the petitioner on account of his Scout certificate and thus considering their total marks, they be given benefit of appointment on the post of Sanskrit Teacher Grade-III with all consequential benefits and such appointment should be given to the petitioner from the date others are given such appointments.

ii) Any other appropriate order which this Hon''ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may be passed in favour of the petitioner."

Briefly, the material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised needs to be first noticed. It is pleaded case of the petitioners that the action of the State-respondents in not awarding bonus marks for the certificate of Scout, for the reason that the institutions from where the petitioners have obtained their basic qualification, is not an affiliated Institute; deprived them of their appointment to the post of Teacher Grade-III in Sanskrit subject.

Reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, the learned counsel for the petitioners asserted that as contemplated under Clause 9.2 of the Advertisement, after determination of marks obtained in the two qualifying examinations, bonus marks were to be awarded for various categories including those who were in possession of certificate of participation in Sports as well as NCC/Scout etc. According to the certificate in possession of the petitioners, they were entitled to 3 bonus marks. The petitioners on an enquiry were informed by the Organization which granted them the certificates, that the certificates granted to them were of the same status and value as that of a certificate issued by the affiliated School or College. Therefore, had the State-respondents accorded the 3 bonus marks, the petitioners would have found place in the main merit list instead of the reserve list.

In response to the notice of the writ application, the State-respondents have filed their counter affidavit pleading that the merit list was drawn as per criteria detailed out in the advertisement; taking into account 75% of marks of Senior Secondary and 25% marks of S.T.C. Weightage was also to be accorded for co-curricular activities like NCC, Scout Guide and Sports etc., on production of certificates from the School in which the candidate prosecuted his/her studies regularly. The certificates produced by the petitioners were obtained from Ranger of Rajasthan State Bharat Scout and Guide, Nipun Rover Badge, Jhotwara, Jaipur; which is an open range, and therefore, the certificates of the petitioners were not considered for award of bonus marks.

In order to finalize the reserve merit list three times candidates of the list, were called for verification of their documents including Shri Krishan Murari Sharma and Om Prakash Deharu. On the verification of the documents, it was found that the Scout Certificate was obtained from an Independent team/organisation, and therefore, they were not awarded 3% bonus marks.

Learned counsel for the State-respondents, Mr. B.K. Sharma, Addl. Govt. Counsel, reiterating the stand in the counter affidavit/reply to the writ application, and supporting the action of the State-respondents, in not according 3% bonus marks to the petitioners, asserted that the action of the State-respondents is perfectly legal, valid and in consonance with the guidelines issued from time to time in the matter of grant of bonus marks on account of participation in co-curricular activities including NCC/Scout Guide and Sports etc.

Referring to communication dated 23rd January, 2004, he stressed that clarifications have been issued from time to time with reference to award of bonus marks, which is evident from the communication aforesaid, from where it is reflected that on 10th March, 2004, instructions were issued to the effect that bonus marks would be admissible only to the candidates who have acquired training from the State of Rajasthan and not outside the State. It has also been clarified that the certificate of participation in co-curricular activities, must be acquired while pursuing studies. Since the certificate in possession of the petitioners did not reflect the fact that they were with reference to co-curricular activities while they were prosecuting their studies regularly in the School; therefore, they were not awarded with 3% bonus marks, in deviation to the criteria as indicated in the clarification. Thus, there is no violation any of the provisions of Article 14 and/or 16 of the Constitution of India.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the materials available on record.

Indisputably, the petitioners participated in the recruitment process. The criteria for grant of bonus marks was specifically detailed out with the necessary stipulations in the advertisement dated 10th September, 2003. The guidelines issued from time to time clarified and restricted the grant of bonus marks to the candidates, who acquired the certificates reflecting their participation in the co-curricular activities during the period while they were prosecuting their studies in the School. The regularities/clarifications have not been challenged by the petitioners.

The criteria and the clarification was detailed out in the counter affidavit by the State-respondents, and that too has not been disputed by the petitioners, by way of any subsequent pleadings, be it an additional affidavit or rejoinder.

Though, the petitioners filed an application under Section 151 CPC, referring to the orders, directing respondents to award appropriate bonus marks on the basis of Scout certificate for the purpose of consideration of their candidatures, for appointment to the post of Teacher Grade-III in SBCWP No. 642/2004 (Prithvi Singh v. State) and SBCWP No. 421/2004 (Harnek Singh v. State). Neither copies of those orders have been placed on record nor have been produced for perusal of the Court during the course of arguments, as stated in the application.

Be that as it may, the petitioners having participated in the recruitment process and were declared unsuccessfully are precluded from assailing the recruitment process and the criteria, has been held by the Hon''ble Apex Court of the land in the case of Dhananjay Malik and Others Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others, , wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court held thus:

"7. It is not disputed that the writ petitioners-respondents herein participated in the process of selection knowing fully well that the educational qualification was clearly indicated in the advertisement itself as B.P.E. or graduate with diploma in physical education. Having unsuccessfully participated in the process of selection without any demur they are estopped from challenging the selection criterion inter alia that the advertisement and selection with regard to requisite educational qualifications were contrary to the Rules.

In Madan Lal and Others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others, , this Court pointed out that when the petitioners appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned, the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Therefore, only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed writ petitions. This Court further pointed out that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the present case, as already pointed out, the writ petitioners- respondents herein participated in the selection process without any demur; they are estopped from complaining that the selection process was not in accordance with the Rules. If they think that the advertisement and selection process were not in accordance with the Rules they could have challenged the advertisement and selection process without participating in the selection process. This has not been done."

For the reasons and discussions hereinabove, the writ petition is devoid of any substance and lacks in merit, and therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

Ordered accordingly.

No costs.