1 SAW No.819/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.819 of 2009. IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9545 of 2006. State of Rajasthan and Others VERSUS Ghanshyam Yadav son of Shri Kalu Ram. Date of Order :::: 18.11.2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.S. Kothari Mr. Dinesh Yadav, A.A.G. for the Appellants **** By the Court : This special appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 17.01.2009 by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed for consideration of the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of P.T.I. Grade-III in pursuance of advertisement Annexure-7 dated 30.07.2003. The present appeal has been listed from the defects side before us, as the Registry has reported that there was a delay of 94-days in filing this appeal. We have prior to consideration of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act also examined the matter on merits to prima-facie satisfy ourselves whether or not the notice of the said 2 SAW No.819/2009 application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act deserves to be issued. The case of the petitioner-respondent, herein was that he had in all secured merit position of 202 in the O.B.C. Category for the appointment of P.T.I. Grade-III. However, despite persons lower in merit having been given appointment the case of the petitioner was ignored and he was denied the appointment. The reply, which was submitted by the appellants, herein was that the petitioner was not entitled to the award of marks on the basis of the Sports Certificate, which was not countersigned by the authorities and accordingly the petitioner was not given the benefit of such marks. Petitioner in the writ petition in Para 10 had specifically averred that he had submitted the Certificates and which were countersigned by the Deputy Director, Secondary Education Rajasthan, Bikaner on 31st March, 2004 and he submitted copies thereof to the respondent No.3 along with an application. The said Certificate, so submitted by the petitioner were sent for being verified, but neither the result of any said verification in favour of the petitioner or against him was ever received. So far as the above submissions made in Para 10 of the writ petition are concerned, we find that there is no specific denial to the same in the reply filed by the appellants. 3 SAW No.819/2009 Be that as it may, the learned Single Judge has also taken into consideration the fact that under the rules there was no requirement for countersigning of such certificates and, therefore, insisting for counter signature on the certificate was dehors the rules. On the basis of the above, the learned Single Judge was of the view that the case of the petitioner, who admittedly was at merit position No.202 could not have been denied the appointment, which was admittedly given to persons lower in merit in the said merit list. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is just and proper and calls for no interference. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that they had issued a circular directing that the Certificates shall be considered only if they are countersigned and, therefore, even if there was no such requirement under the rules, the circular was issued providing for counter signature of the certificates, which was not relied upon by the learned Single Judge. So far as the above submission is concerned in view of the specific averments made in the petition that the petitioner had in fact got the certificates countersigned from the Deputy Director and submitted the same along with an application and which were sent 4 SAW No.819/2009 for being verified and these averments not having been denied by the appellants, no fault can be found with the petitioner on this account as ever the requirement under the circular has been fulfilled. In case, the appellants wanted to verify the fact with regard to the issuance of the Certificates, which had been countersigned by the Deputy Director they could have easily got the same verified, but the very fact that these averments have not been denied clearly shows the lapse on the part of the appellants. In the facts and circumstances, we find no error in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is accordingly liable to be dismissed. The appeal, the stay application and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1967 accordingly stand disposed of. (S.S. Kothari) J. (Dalip Singh) J. Ashok/