CWP 2150/99 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.2150/1999 Pankaj K. Bansal Versus Rajasthan State Electricity Board Jaipur Date of Order ::: 13/05/08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Sajid Ali for Mr. P.Singh, for petitioner Mrs Namita Parihar for Mr. RC Joshi, for respondents Instant petition has been filed with the grievance that after being appointed as Junior Accountant upon participation in process of selection vide order dt.30/01/99 (Ann.4), his services were terminated vide order dt.11/03/99 (Ann.6). Petitioner possessed qualification of B.Com & M.Com with 1st Div. from Agra University as is evident from mark-sheets (Ann.2 & 3). Post of Junior Accountant alongwith other posts were notified vide advertisement dt.29/10/1998 (Ann.1). Minimum qualification required for the post of Junior Accountant was that one should possess 1st Division Under-graduate Degree with Commerce from University established by law, which the petitioner possessed & being eligible, submitted his application. Merit list was prepared on academic qualifications of respective aspirants and according to proviso added to 1st para of Reg.16 of Ministerial Staff Regulations, CWP 2150/99 //2// 1962 – reference whereof has been made in order dt.18/09/1998 (Ann.9), those who hold higher qualification like M.Com with 1st class degree were entitled to get 3 increased notional marks. Respondents determined 70.22% marks having secured in under-graduate degree course (B.Com) and since he also possessed post-graduate 1st class degree (M.Com), 3 bonus marks were also added thereby computing his total marks as 73.21% while assessing his merit; based on his academic record, petitioner was given appointment to the post of Junior Accountant vide order dt.30/01/99 (Ann.4) where his name finds placed at S.No.34 – in pursuance whereof, joined as Junior Accountant. But without affording an opportunity of hearing, and on the premise that on verification of his original marks sheets furnished to the respondents, total percentage of marks secured by him is lower than percentage required for selection in question, his services were terminated and his initial appointment order dt.30/01/99 was cancelled vide order dt.11/03/99 (Ann.6). Hence this petition. Notices were issued but no interim stay order was passed against order of termination, impugned. Counsel for petitioner submits that after due verification of his academic record and as per marks secured in Under-graduate degree CWP 2150/99 //3// (B.Com) awarded by Agra University, percentage of marks was assessed as 70.21%, to which 3 bonus marks were added for his higher qualification of 1st class PG degree (M.Com) and thus assessing his merit based on total percentage of marks as 73.21% to his credit, he was appointed as Junior Accountant; in view whereof, there was neither concealment nor mis-representation on his part about qualification as per advertisement in question and that apart, after having taken note of his marks secured in 1st class B.Com and M.Com degrees, he was found eligible and was placed in order of merit during process of selection for appointment to the post of Junior Accountant but without affording an opportunity of hearing and in clear violation of principles of natural justice, his services were terminated vide order impugned which is wholly arbitrary and violative of constitutional mandate. Respondents inter-alia averred in para 3 of their reply that on scrutiny of original certificates of academic qualification, his percentage of marks secured in 1st class B.Com degree was 69% and after adding 3 percentage of marks for higher qualification of 1st class PG degree (M.Com), total percentage of marks in his case was assessed as 72% only; while last CWP 2150/99 //4// candidate considered on merit for appointment in question was having 72.83% marks; as such his appointment has rightly been cancelled. When matter came up for consideration on 03/04/08, this Court directed respondents to give out break-up of percentage of marks assessed for merit in course of process of selection for determining eligibility and what procedure has been adopted by them while computing academic qualification of incumbents. In pursuance whereof in additional affidavit respondents specifically averred that as per norms of University of Rajasthan, marks obtained in compulsory subjects are excluded whereas as per norms of Agra University, marks of compulsory subjects are also added while computing total percentage of marks secured in degree course; and as such respondents in fact took decision that marks secured in compulsory subjects being taken note of by Agra University, were reduced on the pattern of Rajasthan University norms – in view whereof, name of petitioner does not find place in order of merit. It is relevant to mention here that respondents have not disclosed as to what procedure was adopted in computing comparative merit based on academic record of applicants. CWP 2150/99 //5// This court has considered contentions of both the parties and with their assistance perused material on record. Indisputably petitioner possessed qualification of 1st class B.Com. & M.Com, from Agra University which is established by law and is recognised for all purposes. Every University has its own norms as per which marks are taken note of for determining percentage of marks secured by incumbents. There was no policy decision either taken or disclosed prior to issuance of advertisement in question, for determination of academic record of an incumbent, despite specifically called for to explain vide order dt.03/04/08 nor there was any specific condition in advertisement in question disclosing mode of computing percentage of marks secured either in U.G. or PG degree course in case of incumbent having minimum qualification from University other than Rajasthan University; as such there cannot be a comparison in regard to norms of respective University established by law. Agra University has its own norms to determine percentage of marks of incumbent based on three years academic record of UG degree course including compulsory subjects and at the same time, University of Rajasthan has its own norms/regulations for determining percentage of CWP 2150/99 //6// marks. In such circumstances, it cannot be inferred that procedure adopted by Agra University in determining percentage of marks of applicants in UG degree course is either way faulty or requires to be interfered with. In fact, petitioner submitted his mark- sheets of minimum qualification from a University duly established by law. Indisputably as per Agra University, petitioner secured 70.21% marks in UG degree (B.Com) and after adding 3 bonus marks for higher qualification viz. 1st class PG degree (M.Com) as per entitlement in terms of Regulation 16 duly amended vide order dt.18/09/98 (Ann.9), his total percentage of marks stood determined to 73.21%; on the basis whereof, he got appointment. It is not the case of respondents that in terms of percentage of marks finally determined based on academic record, viz. 73.21%, petitioner was not entitled for appointment. Very basis which respondents took note of while re-determining academic record & merit on the pattern of University of Rajasthan in case of petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, was not legally sustainable. That apart, once petitioner was allowed to participate in process of selection in terms of advertisement which did not disclose for CWP 2150/99 //7// adopting different method for determining percentage of marks in case of minimum qualification from a University other than University of Rajasthan, and finally appointed vide order dt.30/01/99 rights certainly vested in him and without due compliance of principles of natural justice, respondents were not at all justified in terminating his services vide order impugned. Consequently, writ petition succeeds and and is hereby allowed. Order dt.11/03/99 (Ann.6) is hereby quashed & set aside. Respondents are directed to reinstate petitioner in service with all consequential benefits including continuity in service and seniority assigned in terms of order of merit while appointing vide order dt. 30/01/99 for the post of Junior Accountant; however, he will be entitled for notional fixation of pay, without any pecuniary benefits for intervening period. All exercise for compliance be made within two months. No order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.7/2150CW99-1305.doc