1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR O R D E R Shiv Prasad Patidar vs. State of Rajasthan & others S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4148/ 1996 under Articles 227 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Date of Order : : : : : : : : : : : 8th February, 2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTI CE K.S. CHAUDHARI Mr. Sandeep Saxena for the petitioner. Mr. LN Boss, Addl.Govt.Counsel for the State. The dispute in this writ petition is with regard to the bonus marks which have not been awarded to the petitioner in respect of being resident of Rajasthan as he obtained secondary, senior secondary, graduation and B.Ed. qualification from Madhya Pradesh. An advertisement No.1/ 95 (Annexure-10) was issued for inviting applications for the post of Teacher Grade-III by which 279 vacancies were advertised and the last date for submission of application was 31.12.1995. The petitioner in 2 pursuance of aforesaid advertisement applied alongwith necessary certificates. It was alleged that he passed from 1st to 8th Standard from Governm ent Upper Primary School, Patalia-Kulmi Tehsil Jhalarapatan, District Jhalawar. It was further alleged that his parents and grand-parents and he himself is bonafide resident of Jhalawar as apparent from voter list and certificate issued by the competent authority. It was further alleged that persons lower in merit were appointed as Primary School Teachers as per Para 11 of the petition and on enquiry it was told to him that he was not considered resident of State of Rajasthan as he had passed his secondary, higher secondary, graduation and B.Ed.examination from State of Madhya Pradesh and in terms of circular dated 15.11.94 readwith 8.6.95 he cannot be considered resident of State of Rajasthan. It was further alleged that as per conditions of State of Madhya Pradesh, after completion of his graduation, he applied for B.Ed. and rightly submitted certificate of resident of State of Madhya Pradesh at the relevant tim e, but on that ground he cannot be deprived from the right of 3 consideration and grant of bonus marks for appointment to the post of Primary School Teacher. It was further prayed that circular dated 8.6.95 (Annexure-13) be quashed and the respondents may be directed to give petitioner appointment on the post of Primary School Teacher w.e.f. 24.7.96, the date from which persons lower in merit were appointed in pursuance of aforesaid advertisement with all consequential benefits. The respondents filed reply and submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for bonus marks because at the time of adm ission in Madhya Pradesh he became resident of Madhya Pradesh and at the time of employment he becomes resident of Rajasthan, hence, the writ petition may be dismissed. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The respondents have placed letter dated 29.2.92 issued by the Controller, Professional Examination, Bhopal to Collector, Jhalawar that as per rules of the Board a candidate should be bonafide resident of State of M.P. for entrance in B.Ed. and this rule is still in force since 1986. The petitioner him self 4 has admitted in para 12 of his writ petition that after completion of his graduation, he appeared in B.Ed. and rightly submitted certificate being resident of State of M.P. only on that basis he was admitted and passed B.Ed.examination certificate. Thus, it becomes clear that at the time of passing B.Ed.examination he became resident of State of M.P. whereas at the time of seeking employment he wants to avail benefit of bonafide resident of Rajasthan for obtaining 20 bonus marks. As per documents annexed with the petition it becomes clear that petitioner's parents are resident of Rajasthan and S.D.O.Jhalawar has also issued certificate of bonafide resident to the petitioner and his name has also been enrolled in District Employment Exchange, Jhalawar. But other documents also reveal that the petitioner obtained secondary, senior secondary, graduation and B.Ed. qualification from M.P. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner's village is situated on the Border of M.P. and school and college were not available in his village, in such circumstances, petitioner obtained 5 higher qualification from M.P. Whatever the reason may be, it is admitted position that the petitioner secured his secondary, senior secondary, graduation and B.Ed.qualification from M.P. and admittedly at the time of taking admission in B.Ed. Course he had shown himself to be bonafide resident of M.P. Now the question arises whether a person while taking educational qualification can show himself to be bonafide resident of one State and while taking appointment can show himself to be bonafide resident of other State ? Apparently, this cannot be permitted. As per circular dated 15.11.94 (Annexure-12) if the candidate passed higher secondary examination or graduation from the State of Rajasthan and has done B.Ed.from M.P. then he may be considered as resident of Rajasthan, if his father's name is found in the District Voter List. Thereafter, another circular dated 8.6.95 (Annexure-13) was issued in which it was clarified that the benefit to the candidates of Rajasthan would be given if they have passed any of the examination namely, secondary, senior secondary, graduation from Rajasthan and their parents and his 6 name exists in the voter list. Admittedly, the petitioner has not passed any of the examination mentioned in Annexure-13 from Rajasthan and in such circumstances as per circular dated 26.2.91 the petitioner is not entitled to get benefit of 20 marks on the pretext of bonafide resident of State of Rajasthan. Same controversy was considered by the Coordinate Bench in SB Civil Writ Petition No.6693/ 92 Ram Kanwar vs. State of Rajasthan and by order dated 11.4.96 while disposing writ petition it was observed that the petitioner would be considered for grant of 20 marks on the basis of the letter dated 8.6.95, if they produce satisfactory evidence of having passed any of the exam ination in Rajasthan and the name of their parents exists in the voter list of that District. In this case judgement rendered in DB Special Appeal (Writ) No.200/ 93 State of Rajasthan Vs. Arvind Kumar and 26 others decided on 6.4.94 was considered, by which while allowing appeal, order of learned Single Judge dated 6.5.93 was set aside. By order dated 6.5.93 para 3 of the circular dated 26.2.91 was quashed, but by Division Bench of this Court (supra), para 3 of the 7 aforesaid circular was held to be in accordance with law. In such circumstances, it becomes clear that the petitioner was not entitled to get benefit of bonus marks as he was not bonafide resident of Rajasthan in the light of the circular dated 8.6.95. Circular dated 8.6.95 is in accordance with law and not liable to be quashed and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as the petitioner has not secured more marks than the candidates mentioned in para 11 of the petition. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner against the respondents is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (K.S.CHAUDHARI) J. teekam