S.B. C. Writ Petition No. 2290/1997. (Kailash Chand Yadav Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) Date of Order: 06/04/2010. HON'BLE MR. MOHAMMAD RAFIQ,J. Mr NS Chauhan, for the petitioner. Mr Ganesh Meena, Govt. Counsel) for respondents. Mr Ravindra S. Chaudhary for Mr NA Naqvi, AAG) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner way back in the year 1997 aggrieved by refusal of appointment on the condition that he has failed to get verification of his certificate course in Physical Education Examination of the year 1979-80 awarded by Shri Hanuman Vyayam Prasarak Mandal, Amravati. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was duly selected for appointment on the post of P.T.I. Gr.III and has cited the order issued by District Education Officer, Alwar by which he was appointed and in the order his name finds place at Serial No.61 which have been placed as Annex.3 and 4 issued by the same officer. However, he submitted that the condition put in the appointment letter that the petitioner should get the certificate verified from the Director of Primary and Secondary Education for Rajashtan at Bikaner, was unreasonable. Even then he approached that authority, however, he declined to attest the certificate. The learned counsel submitted that the qualification in question was de-recognised from the Session 1980-81 onwards by order of the Government dated 13.2.80. However, for the earlier batches, the appointments were given pursuant to judgment of this Court in Ram Karan Yadav, DB Civil Writ Petition No. 2545/1983 decided on 27.7.1989 by which 45 writ petitions were allowed. All those candidates who had acquired such qualification in the academic session 1979-80 were entitled to be considered for appointment as PTI Gr. III in accordance with their merit in the district concerned and such appointments were in fact given. The petitioner has referred to cases of Phool Singh and Om Prakash Yadav who were similarly situated to the petitioner and in the same institution were granted appointments. The learned counsel submitted that the certificate was initially issued by Shri Hanuman Vyayam Prasarak Mandal, Amravati Hanuman and on that basis, another certificate was issued by Director, Sports and Youth Services, Maharashtra State, Pune which is on record as Annex.1. The earlier certificate has also been placed by the petitioner on record pursuant to the directions of this Court with an affidavit contending that if the certificate produced by the petitioner is found to be forged or otherwise not genuine, the respondents would be free to proceed against him in accordance with law even for removal of his services. The learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that two certificates in case of one person cannot be accepted because unless those certificates are verified by the petitioner or from the concerned authorities, the same cannot be considered to be genuine and the petitioner may not be granted any relief. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I find that petitioner has placed on record the mark-sheet of his certificate course which is issued by Shri Hanuman Vyayam Prasarak Mandal, Amravati. He has also produced the certificate issued by Shri Hanuman Vyayam Prasarak Mandal, Amravati as also the certificate issued by the Director, Sports and Youth Services, Maharashtra State, Pune. The verification has been made at the back of the certificate by Director, Sports and Youth Services, Maharashtra State, Pune to show that the documents have been verified from record and found to be correct. On the basis of such verification, the respondents could always be at liberty to get a counter- verification at their own level from the authorities in Maharashtra. There is no reason why the petitioner will be denied appointment when other similarly situated candidates have been granted the benefits by the respondents, albeit pursuant to the judgment of this Court. The respondents, if they ultimately at any point of time find that the certificates produced by the petitioner are not genuine or otherwise forged, they can proceed to dispense with his services after giving him notice and calling upon him to explain. When the writ petition was filed, notice was issued to the respondents, the respondents were restrained from terminating the services of the petitioner and were permitted to allow the petitioner to continue in service pursuant to appointment letter Annex.3 and 4. The petitioner should not, therefore, be deprived of his right to continue in such employment because, he has amply make out a case for issuance of writ of mandamus. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is allowed to continue in service on the strength of qualification acquired by him with all consequential benefits. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J. Gandhi/-P.A. Item No. 24