- 1 - S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2996/2006 (Mohammad Anis vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) DATE OF ORDER : 6/8/2008 HON'BLE JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr.P.R.Mehta, for the petitioner. Mr.Rameshwar Dave, Deputy Government counsel. In this petition, petitioner is claiming directions to the respondents to consider his case for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.III in compliance of order dated 24/2/2006 (Annex.10), 1/3/2006 (Annex.11) and circular dated 1/7/2003 (Annex.12). Further it is prayed that respondents may be directed to consider the case of petitioner on his representation for appointment in the light of above orders passed by the Government. The case of petitioner is that in pursuance of advertisement issued by respondent no.2 dated 15/6/1998 for recruitment on 109 posts of Teacher Gr.III petitioner applied being eligible candidate. According to petitioner, at the time of filing application he was possessing senior secondary (Vocational) and B.Ed qualification so also he acquired bridge course certificate on 5/2/2000 and according to merit list prepared by the respondents petitioner secured 81.94% marks, - 2 - whereas, last appointment was given to a candidate who has secured 81.49% marks, therefore,petitioner is also entitled for appointment. In the pleadings it is stated that name of petitioner finds place at serial no. 294 in merit list Annex.2, therefore, his case was to be considered for appointment after acquiring bridge course so also in pursuance of Annex.10 dated 24/2/2006, Annex.11 dated 1/3/2006 and Circular Annex.12 dated 1/7/2003, whereby certain directions were issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kailash Chandra Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2002 (6) SCC page 562. The prayer of petitioner is that respondents are under obligation to consider his candidature in accordance with above orders issued by the State of Rajasthan in pursuance of judgment rendered in Kailash Chandra Sharma's case. Learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that petitioner is entitled to seek direction from this Court as directed in case of Chandra Prakash vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5342/2005) decided on 121/9/2005 so also directions issued by this Court in Badri Lal Joshi & Ors. vs. State and ors. Reported in 2003 (3) WLC (Raj.) page 213. Per contra, by way of filing reply it is specifically stated by respondents that though petitioner applied in pursuance of - 3 - advertisement issued in the year 1998 for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.III but on the last date of filing application he was not possessing the Senior secondary (Vocational) qualification along with bridge course, therefore, he was not provided appointment. Further it is submitted that petitioner is not entitled to any direction because litigation with regard to awarding or deducting bonus marks for district and village area was pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court and after the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court above orders/circulars were issued by the State Government but case of petitioner does not fall under above circular because in Kailash Chandra Sharma's case (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has specifically held that claim of writ petitioners be considered afresh in the light of the judgment vis-a-vis the candidates appointed on or after 18/11/1999 or those in the select list who are yet to be appointed. On such consideration, if those writ petitioners are found to be have superior merit in case of bonus marks of 10% and/or 5% are excluded, they should be offered appointments, if necessary, by displacing the candidates appointed on or after 18/11/1999. Further it is pointed out that as per verdict of Hon'ble Supreme Court appointment made upto 17/11/1999 were not required to be reopened and reconsidered in light of the law laid - 4 - down in the judgment of Kailash Chandra Sharma's case. Therefore, obviously even if it is admitted that petitioner has secured 81.94% marks then for the purpose of considering the candidature of petitioner 15 marks were to be deducted and after deduction of these marks petitioner is not entitled for appointment so also no person lesser meritorious than petitioner has been provided appointment, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to seek any direction from this Court. Further it is also contended by learned counsel for the respondents that in this case petitioner is claiming appointment in pursuance of order dated 24/2/2006 (Annex10), order dated 1/3/2006 (Annex.11) and circular dated 1/7/2003 (Annex.12) which have been passed after the judgment in Kailash Chandra Sharma's case (supra), therefore, question of acquiring bridge course in the year 2000 is totally irrelevant, hence this petition may be dismissed. I have considered the rival submissions of both the sides. In this case admittedly, petitioner applied in pursuance of advertisement dated 15/6/1998 and on last date of filing application he was not eligible as he was possession qualification of senior secondary (vocational) and subsequently he acquired bridge course in the year 2000 and on that basis he is claiming - 5 - appointment while saying that his name was included in the merit list as he secured 81.94% marks but in my opinion after the judgment in Kailash Chandra Sharma's case (supra) 15 marks were to be deducted and after deducting 15 marks petitioner no more stands in merit. Further as per reply filed by respondents no person having less percentage of marks than petitioner has been provided appointment, therefore, in my opinion petitioner cannot claim any appointment as a matter of right because no person with lesser percentage of marks has been appointed. It is also required to be observed that respondent no.5 was appointed before 18/11/1999, therefore, petitioner cannot raise any voice against appointment of respondent no.5 because as per the judgment in Kailash Chandra Sharma's case (supra) his appointment is not to be disturbed, therefore, there is no merit in this writ petition. This writ petition is also required to be dismissed on the ground of delay because petitioner has preferred this writ petition in the year 2006 claiming appointment against the vacancies advertised in 1998 on the ground that in the year 2000 he has acquired bridge course and became eligible for appointment. - 6 - Hence, while following the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Kailash Chandra Sharma's case (supra) no directions can be issued in favour of petitioner for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.III. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. pb