Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition was filed by petitioner Umesh Singh Tanwar way back in the year 1996 with the grievance that despite the fact that petitioner possess N.C.C. Certificate -B Senior Division Army Wing Infantry, he was not awarded 2% marks as Weightage while preparing the merit for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.III. Petitioner applied for such appointment pursuant to Advertisement No. 1/1996. He was called for interview on 1/10/1996. He duly produced copy of the Certificate along with the form which has again been produced before this Court. Respondents have awarded 1% marks to the candidates, who had N.C.C. Certificate -A and 3% marks to those having N.C.C. Certificate -C and therefore they were required to award 2% marks to the petitioner, who had N.C.C. Certificate -B. Last candidate selected in the waiting list had secured 70.46% marks whereas, petitioner 's merit was 70.49% marks. If 2% marks would have been awarded to the petitioner in this merit, it would be 72.49% marks which is even more than the marks secured by the last candidate selected in the main select list having obtained 71.58 marks.
(2.) IT is very unfortunate that despite issue of notices in the present writ petition by this Court way back on 31/1/1996 and thereafter despite grant of number of adjournments on dozens of occasions, no reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents and the learned Additional Government Counsel has again asking today for adjournment for filing reply. When the facts pleaded in the memo of writ petition are not rebutted, no option left for the Court but to decide the case. Shri S.D. Khaspuria, learned Additional Government Counsel however has opposed the writ petition and submitted that it is only 2 marks which were required to be awarded although in certain part of pleadings it is mentioned as 2% marks. Learned Counsel submitted that even otherwise, it would be the matter for verification by the authorities whether the petitioner was entitled to 2% or 2 marks at the material time. Moreover, selection having been completed long back, this Court should not entertain writ petition after so much of delay.
(3.) IT is to be noted that the writ petition has remained pending before this Court for last thirteen years not because of any fault on his part but partly for the reasons attributable to the respondents themselves for not filing reply despite being granted number of adjournments. Petitioner has made out a prima -facie case for issuance of writ of mandamus to the respondents which is accordingly issued that respondents shall examine the case of the petitioner whether or not he was entitled to 2% or 2 marks, whatever may be the case as per the relevant instructions, on the basis of the N.C.C. Certificate -B by adding those marks and the merit should be re -determined and upon doing so, if it is found that any candidate having lesser merit/marks than petitioner has been given appointment then, consider case of the petitioner for appointment. In the event of petitioner being appointed however, he would be entitled to notional benefits for the intervening period although with continuity of service and he shall be deemed to be appointed from the date on which candidate immediately below him in merit is found to have been appointed.;