Gagandeep vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 593 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 970/2023

Gagandeep S/o Shri Dharam Pal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Ward No. 19, Vpo Dhaban, Tehsil Sangaria, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

                                                                         ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Manish Patel
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Kunal Upadhyay

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

16/01/2023

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking

direction to the respondents to consider the candidature of the

petitioner as per his degree/diploma in Computer Application from

the recognized University/Institute with all consequential benefits.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that issue raised

in the present writ petition is squarely covered by

order in Praveen Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan &

Anr. : SBCWP No.16749/2019 decided on 4.2.2021, wherein,

in a similar nature controversy, the writ petition filed by the

petitioner therein was allowed.

Submissions have also been made that the order in the case

of Praveen Kumar (supra) has been upheld by the Division Bench.

(2 of 4) [CW-970/2023]

Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to

dispute that the issue as raised in the present writ petition is

squarely covered by order in the case of Praveen Kumar (supra).

In the case of Praveen Kumar (supra) this Court, after

considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties,

interalia, came to the conclusion and passed order as under:-

"I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record, the facts are not in dispute,wherein, the petitioner at the time of filing of the application, relied on a qualification which was not recognized by the respondents. The respondents,during the course of the recruitment process, issued various circulars including circular dated 30.10.2017,25.12.2017 and 11.07.2018. The circular dated 30.10.2017 insofar as relevant, reads-as-under:

"bl dk;kZy; ds vkns"k Øekad ,Q-37¼ ½ [email protected]@d-fy-lh/kh HkrhZ&[email protected]@3263 fnukad 17-08-2017 ds }kjkfoLr`r fn"kk&funsZ"k tkjh djrs gq, ,sls vH;FkhZ ftuds }kjk vkosnu dh vfUre frfFk 18-04-2013 ds i"pkr~ rFkk twu] 2013 esa fufeZr p;u lwph tkjh fd;s tkus rd viuh vkj-,[email protected]; ekU; dEI;wVj iz"kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk iw.kZ dj yh xbZ gks] dks p;u lwph e saizksfotuyh ik= ekurs gq, muds fy, in j[ks tkus ds funsZ"k fn;s x;s FksA iapk;rh jkt foHkkx }kjk fnukad 07-05-2013 dks tkjhfoLr`r fn"kk&funsZ"kksa ds fcUnq la[;k 30 esa ;g O;oLFkk dh xbZ Fkh fd,sls vH;FkhZ ftuds }kjk viuh dEI;wVj iz"kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk twu] 2013esa fufeZr dh tkus okyh p;u lwph vFkok Mh-bZ-lh- rd iw.kZ dj yhxbZ gS] dks p;u ,oa fu;qfDr gsrq ik= ekuk tk;sxkA bl laca/k esaekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] [k.MihB }kjk gky gh esa fnukad 12-09- 2017dks foLr`r fn"kk&funsZ"k iznku djrs gq, twu] 2013 rd ftuvH;fFkZ;ksa us viuh dEI;wVj iz"kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk iw.kZ dj yh gS dks ghp;u gsrq ik= ekuk x;k gS] mDr frfFk ds i"pkr~ ;ksX;rk /kkj.k djusokys vH;FkhZ p;u ,oa fu;qfDr gsrq ik= ugha gSA foHkkx ds iwoZ esa tkjh vkns"k fnukad 07-05-2013] ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; ,oa fon~oku vfrfjDr egkf/koDrk Jhjkts"k iaokj ls izkIr jk; ds vkyksd esa] izdj.k dk foospu fd;kx;kA ijh{k.k mijkUr ,rn~ }kjk ;g fu.kZ; fy;k tkrk gS fd ,slsvH;FkhZ ftuds }kjk twu] 2013 esa ftyk ifj'knksa }kjk tkjh p;u lwph vFkok Mh-bZ-lh- dh frfFk rd viuh dEI;wVj iz"kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk izzkIrdj yh gS] dks p;u ,oa fu;qfDr gsrq ik= ekuk tk,saA vr% ,slsvH;fFkZ;ksa dks] ftUgsa orZeku esa izksfotuyh p;u lwph esa j[kk x;k gS]dks vkxkeh 7 fnol ds Hkhrj fu;qfDr laca/kh dk;Zokgh iw.kZ djeq[;ky; dks voxr djkuk lqfuf"pr djsa"

(emphasis added) A perusal of the above indicates that the department, clearly issued guidelines to indicate that RSCIT / other recognized Computer qualification obtained before June, 2013 could be produced and was to be taken into consideration.

Again the circular dated 26.12.2017, which was

(3 of 4) [CW-970/2023]

essentially confined to RS-CIT qualification, also emphasized that the qualification must have been obtained before the cut off date i.e.June, 2013 and the circular dated 11.07.2018 provided that even the candidates who had passed their Senior Secondary with the subject Computer Science/Computer Application, were also eligible.

In view of the above fact situation, it is apparent that the respondents have permitted candidates who had not relied on a particular qualification at the time of filing application, however, who had obtained the same before the cut off date i.e. June, 2013, could rely on them for indicating their qualification. Apparently, no dispute has been raised by the respondents pertaining to the qualification now sought to be relied on by the respondents regarding its eligibility, however, it is indicated that the respondents could not verify the same.

Besides the above, the learned counsel emphasized that as the certificate was issued in the year 2016, the same cannot be relied on. A bare look at the certificate indicates that the petitioner had completed the course of studies approved by the University and the prescribed examinations held in June, 2012. Once the petitioner had appeared in the examination June, 2012 and had cleared the same in first division as per the certificate,merely because the certificate in this regard was issued on 20.04.2016 cannot be a reason to refuse to take the same into consideration inasmuch as the requirement as per the circular is that the qualification must have been obtained before the cut off date and not that the certificate must be obtained before the cut off date.

If on account of the gap between the petitioner having cleared the examination and the issuance of certificate, there is any apprehension regarding its genuineness, the respondents are always free to verify its genuineness before acting on the same.

So far as judgment in the case of Radha Chaudhary (supra), relied on by learned counsel for the respondents is concerned, the judgment was delivered on 04.05.2017, which was in consonance with the stipulation made in the advertisement, whereby, the same was required to be produced alongwith the application form, however, in view of the circulars dated30.10.2017, 26.12.2017 and 11.07.2018 issued by respondents providing opportunity to candidates to rely on qualifications other than what was indicated in the application form, the said judgment in the case Radha Chaudhary (supra), has lost its efficacy.

So far as reliance placed on judgment in the case of Ramesh Chandra Meena (supra), is concerned, the said judgment, has relied on by

(4 of 4) [CW-970/2023]

quoting the entire judgment in Sangeeta Sen v. State & Ors. : S.B. CivilWrit Petition No.5851/2017, decided on 24.08.2017, at the time of decision in the case of Sangeeta Sen(supra) also, none of the circulars dated 30.10.2017,26.12.2017 and 11.07.2018 were in existance.

Besides the same, the prayer made in the petition in the case of Sangeeta Sen (supra), pertained to taking into consideration the qualification obtained bythe candidates after the cut off date. It is in that context that the Court observed as under:

In considered view of this Court, the Circulars dated 12.04.2017 and 01.08.2017, permitting the candidates to furnish RS-CIT Certificate till the date of ensuing document verification should be interpreted in the manner that though the certificate would be considered in the ensuing document verification, but such certificate should bear a date of issuance,prior to the preparation of the first select list in June, 2013."

The observations made that the certificate should bear a date of issuance, prior to the preparation of first select list in June, 2013 has to be read in the context of the prayer made and it cannot be said that the judgment has dealt with an issue pertaining to the qualification having been obtained prior to the cut off date and the certificate having been issued subsequently, more particularly on account of the various circulars issued by the respondent after the date of judgment in the case of Sangeeta Sen (supra).In view of the above discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed, the respondents are directed to take into consideration the qualification relied on by the petitioner, get the same verified in accordance with law and in case the same is found in order / genuine, the petitioner falls in merit in his category and any post is still vacant, he may be accorded appointment in accordance with law".

In view of the submissions made, the petition filed by the

petitioner is allowed in light of and similar directions as given in

the case of Praveen Kumar (supra)

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 414-SanjayS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)