AMITAVA ROY, J. - (1.) IN assailment is the judgment and order dated 30.5.2013 passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6633/2012 thereby requiring the appellants herein to grant 5 marks to the respondent writ petitioner and to consider him for appointment in the traffic cadre if he merits the same on the basis of his performance.
(2.) WE have heard Mr.Harish Purohit, learned counsel for the appellants (respondents in the writ petition) and Mr.Jitendra Singh respondent writ petitioner present in person. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that the respondent writ petitioner in response to the advertisement No.1623 dated 30.8.2011 initiating the process of recruitment to the traffic cadre with the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short, hereafter referred to as "the Corporation") had submitted his candidature. In terms of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Employees Regulations, 1965 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations"), the evaluation of the candidates was to be on the basis of 100 marks apportioned as hereunder: (a) Combined Written Examination 80 (b) Basic Educational Qualification 10 (c) Higher Education Qualification 5 (d) Work experience 5 The marks allocated for work experience were computable as hereinbelow: (I) For one year experience 2 (ii) For two years experience 4 (iii) For 2 1/2 years and more experience 5
(3.) ACCORDING to the respondent writ petitioner, being considered to be eligible for the post in the traffic cadre, he was issued a call letter by the Corporation and he took written examination held at Jodhpur Centre on 18.12.2011. The final list of successful candidates was published on 2.6.2012 and his name appeared in the category of unsuccessful candidates being shown to have secured 65.67 marks out of 100. The respondent writ petitioner has averred that he was awarded 60.67 out of 80 marks in the written examination and 5 marks for his higher qualification i.e. 2 years PG degree making the total tally 65.67. His grievance is that he has not been awarded any mark for "work experience" despite the fact that he had been working on the post of Teacher in the regular pay scale under the State Government for more than 3 years and 8 months by the cut off date. The respondent writ petitioner has pleaded that he has specifically mentioned this fact of work experience in the relevant column of the application form but he was arbitrarily denied any mark therefor though required as per the scheme of allotment thereof. He has contended that had he been awarded 5 marks on the basis of his work experience, he would have been selected. According to him, being aggrieved, he submitted a representation before the Corporation on 4.6.2012 and thereafter, also applied under the Right to Information Act, 2005 for disclosing the reasons for not awarding him 5 marks for work experience. The respondent writ petitioner has averred that the Corporation on receipt of his representation did admit its mistake of not awarding 5 marks to him qua his work experience, however, as it, notwithstanding this, proceeded to act upon the select list dated 2.6.2012, he approached this Court seeking redress.;