Rajasthan High Court
Rajasthan State Road Transport ... vs Gopi Ram Balai S/O Shri Shrawan Lal ... on 18 November, 2021
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Rekha Borana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 533/2021
1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through
Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur.
2. Member Secretary, Service Selection Board, R.s.r.t.c.,
Head Office, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Central
Workshop, Makhupura, Nasirabad Road, Ajmer.
----Appellants
Versus
Gopi Ram Balai S/o Shri Shrawan Lal Balai, Village And Post
Nangalbani, Tehsil Thanagazi, District Alwar (Raj.)
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. J.K. Singhi, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Tarun Kumar Verma
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Madhu Meena
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
18/11/2021
This appeal is filed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge
dated 17.02.2021. The respondent-original petitioner had
appeared for selection to the post of Artisan Grade III (Diesel
Mechanic) in SC category for which the Corporation had invited
applications. The selection test was conducted in which the
petitioner had secured 111 marks. Admittedly as per the policy of
the Corporation two bonus marks would be given to a candidate
who has done apprentice training with the Corporation. It is
undisputed that petitioner had undertaken and successfully
(2 of 4) [SAW-533/2021]
completed the training. Only controversy is that whether the
petitioner had produced such certificate at the time of trade test.
The Corporation under the premise that such certificate was not
produced, refused to give two bonus marks. The petitioner filed a
writ petition contending that such certificate was produced despite
which he was not given benefit.
Learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment came to the
conclusion that petitioner's stand was correct. It was recorded that
petitioner had made a representation and also provided
photocopy of the certificate. The respondents stand was that the
certificate could not be looked into. Significantly the learned Single
had also called for the original records to which the Department
contended that some of the records was destroyed by the
termites. Eventually, the learned Judge rejected the stand of the
Department that the petitioner did not submit the apprentice
certificate by making following observations:-
"5. I have considered the submissions.
6. The petitioner has given out in his representation
that he had earlier also provided a photo-copy of the
apprentice certificate, thus he should be awarded two
bonus marks for having done apprenticeship.
The contention of learned counsel for the
respondent that the petitioner's apprentice certificate
could not be looked into despite of the same being
placed along with the application form, is not
acceptable. Certificate of apprenticeship already on
record, cannot be ignored.
7.The contention of the counsel for the respondent that
at the time of trade test, the petitioner did not submit
apprentice certificate, is also found to be not correct.
As per the trade test, mark-sheet of Artisan Grade-III
(Diesel Mechanic) placed before this court. It is
apparent that there was no column relating to
apprentice certificate at the time of trade test and the
marks were given for Two hour task, Tool knowledge,
Personality and trade skill. The additional marks
relating to bonus on account of apprentice have been
(3 of 4) [SAW-533/2021]
noticed separately on the right side later on. Such
marks which are noted later on, apparently are with
reference to the application form. It is noticed that the
marks are given by two different persons as it is
apparent from the hand writing of "two" mentions in
the right hand corner. Document relating to Bheevraj
Raigar is taken on record.
Thus it is apparent that the petitioner's
candidature has been arbitrarily left out by not giving
him the required bonus marks.
8.If in a pending writ petition the record relating to the
selection is not kept safe and gets destroyed for one
reason or the other."
We have no hesitation in confirming the observations and
findings of the learned Single Judge. The direction to give two
bonus marks to the petitioner is therefore justified. It is not in
dispute that after awarding two bonus marks the petitioner would
have come within the select list. The direction for giving
appointment to the petitioner from the date similarly situated
persons have been appointed also needs no interference. However
when the learned Single Judge had directed that petitioner would
be given all consequential benefits, this portion requires
modification. The petitioner would not get wages for the past
period on the principle of no work no pay. For all other purposes
the past period would be counted as having spent on duty.
In the result, while disposing of the appeal the judgment of
the learned Single Judge is modified. Direction for appointment of
the petitioner from the date when similarly situated candidates
have been appointed is confirmed. Such appointment will be with
all consequential benefits except for payment of actual wages
which would start only from the date the petitioner has been
actually engaged in service. This shall be done within a period of
one month from today. If not so engaged the petitioner will start
receiving salary from the end of the period of one month.
(4 of 4) [SAW-533/2021]
The appeal is disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ
KAMLESH KUMAR/N.Gandhi/2
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
