IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 987 of 1997 PREM DAS V/S ZILA PARISHAD, BARMER & ANR Mr. JS BHALERIA & Mr. RAJESH GREWAL for Mr. HS SIDHU, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. BL BHATI & Mr. ALKESH AGARWAL, for the respondent Date of Order : 28.2.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI DEO NARAYAN THANVI,J. ORDER ----- This appeal has been filed seeking to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge dt. 21.8.1997, dismissing the writ petition. The necessary facts, devoid of unnecessary details are, that the petitioner claims to have obtained High School and Intermediate qualifications from Allahabad Board, U.P., and thereafter B.A. and M.A. from Agra University. Then, he applied for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr.III, in response to advertisement No. 8/95. The petitioner’s name found place in the provisional select list, and was interviewed on 30.12.1995. After interview his name did find place in the final select list according to merit, but appointment was not offered, as one of the conditions of the advertisement was, that appointment shall not be offered, unless verification of degree obtained from the concerned outside State is obtained, and it is contended, that in the advertisement it was stipulated, that till the verification is received, the post shall be kept vacant, and appointments will be offered to those who are next below in the merit list. The Advertisement has been produced as Annexure-5, and then it is contended, that verification could not be received upto 31.8.1996, and since the selection list was valid upto 31.8.1996, the appointment was not given. The denial to give appointment was challenged on the ground, that after receipt of intimation refusing to give appointment, vide letter dt. 19.11.1996, the petitioner again made representation, stating that it was none of his duties to get the degree verified, and thus appointment could not be denied. The learned Single Judge negatived the argument, about the basic requirement being Secondary School Certificate with teaching certificate, the degree of B.A. and M.A. being higher qualification, the verification of which was not necessary, and petitioner could have been given appointment on the basis of his basic qualification, and thus declined to interfere with the refusal to offer 2 appointment. This appeal was admitted vide order dt. 24.9.1997, and thereafter when the matter came up on 29.1.2008, on that day it was orally directed to the respondent, to find out, as to whether, as a matter of fact, the verification has been received, or not. Today it is informed by the learned counsel for the State, that he made enquiries and found, that the verification had been received on 2.9.1996, which was issued by the Agra University on 28.8.1996. Thus, the verification was received after 31.8.1996, by which date the select list had expired, as such appointment was contended to have rightly been declined. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, and have perused the record available with us. A look at the advertisement Annexure-5 shows, that it clearly stipulated, that the appointment will be given only after verification of the qualification, in accordance with the merit in the selection list, and that, the verification will be got done from the concerned Board, University, or Institutions, and the post of the candidate, finding place in the list shall be kept vacant, however, appointment shall be given to the next below persons. In our view, this stipulation no-where contemplates any responsibility on the part of the candidate, to have the qualification verified. 3 Then, the communication Annexure-6 communicates, that the appointment is not given because verification was not received upto 31.8.1996, without informing as to whether the verification had at all been received, or not. This, coupled with the fact, as informed today, that as a matter of fact verification had been received, and that verification was issued by the Agra University on 29.8.1996. In our view, when it is not shown, as to when the documents were sent for verification; in such circumstances, when the verification had been received on 2.9.1996, significantly as the calendar shows that 1st of September, 1996 was Sunday, and if the degree was verified on 29.8.1996, it was reasonably expected to be received by the respondent on or before 31st, but 31st being Saturday, and 1st being Sunday, it happened to be received on 2nd, in our view, it would be wholly unjust to deny appointment to the petitioner; more so when there is stipulation contained in the advertisement, which stipulates that the vacancy shall be available for the selected candidate, whose qualification has been sent for verification shall be kept vacant. Regarding expiry of the select list, a look at Annexure-8 shows, that the select list was to expire, according to Rules, on 31.6.1996, but by giving relaxation 4 the date was extended to 31.8.1996. Annexure-8 is dated 20.7.1996. Obviously relaxation was given with retrospective effect, and for the particular academic session. This, coupled with the fact, that yet another communication Annexure-9 has been issued, though with respect to Zila Parishad, Churu only, conveying, that in cases where verification could not be obtained upto 31.8.1996, and have been verified subsequently, sanction was given to appoint such persons also. May be that this order Annexure-9 has been issued to the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Churu, but then, it is issued by the State Government, and it is required to be considered, that the State Government comprehended the genuine difficulty about verification having not been received in some cases upto the cut off date, and therefore, in the spirit of imparting justice to the candidates, whose qualification had been verified, the relaxation was granted. In our view on the face of this, if the petitioner is denied appointment, in view of the facts noticed above, about his degree having been verified on 29.8.1996, and verification having been received on Monday, i.e. 2.9.1996, it would work grave injustice to the petitioner-appellant, and if he is given appointment, no illegality would come about, nor would it bring about any violation of Articles 5 14 or 16 of the Constitution. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside, and the writ petition is accepted. And the respondents are directed to give appointment to the petitioner in accordance with his placement in the merit list, now within a period of two months from today. The petitioner will get seniority from the date, other person, next below him in the merit, was given appointment, and pay fixation will also be made accordingly. However, the petitioner will be entitled to receive actual emoluments, only from the date he joins. ( DEO NARAYAN THANVI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /Sushil/ 6