- (1.) THE writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for direction to the respondents to modify Clause -11 of the notification dated 25.3.2013 (Annex.4) to the effect that the petitioner is entitled to get 20% weightage in place of 10% weightage.
(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that in pursuance of the advertisement dated 25.3.2013, an application was filed by the petitioner for appointment on the post of Account Assistant. In the advertisement, bonus marks are provided for the services rendered by the candidates in various schemes of the Government. As per petitioner, he worked as Accounts Assistant in the Mahatma Gandhi Narega Project and a certificate was also issued in his favour on 19.3.2013 whereby it was certified that the petitioner worked for one year eight months and two days but in the advertisement, 10 bonus marks is provided for one year experience and 20 bonus marks for two years service and the petitioner worked for more than one and half year, therefore, in view of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bhudev Sharma Vs. District Judge, Bulandshahar and Anr., the respondents are under obligation to give benefit of bonus marks after rounding up the year upto two years because he worked for one year eight months and two days, therefore, direction may be issued to the respondents to modify Clause -II of the notification dated 25.3.2013 (Annex.4) and grant 20 bonus marks for the service period of one year eight months and two days. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it emerges from the facts that the controversy with regard to grant of bonus marks is pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court and Coordinate Bench of this Court in identical controversy passed an order on 07.11.2013 in SB Civil Writ Petition No.4144/2013 (Archana Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. that for the grievance of experience the petitioner may file representation before the respondents and respondents are directed to decide the representation strictly in accordance with law. It is also made clear in the order that after the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP bearing No.32008 -32009/2013 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Archana), if Hon'ble Supreme Court decides that bonus marks are permissible then the petitioner will be entitled to get benefits of bonus marks strictly in accordance with law. The operative part of the order dated 07.11.2013 passed in SB Civil Writ Petition No.4144/2013 by Coordinate Bench of this Court is as follows : - "1. The Division Bench in the present case upon a reference passed a detailed judgment running into 50 pages on 25.9.2013 regarding the issue of bonus marks and the summary of discussions as given by the Division Bench is reproduced below for ready reference : "As a consequent to the entire discussion above, our answers to the referred questions are as follows: - (1)The respondents can make recruitment to the posts in the services concerned even without conducting written examination; (2)Weightage in the form of bonus marks against service experience can be given while adhering the eligibility prescribed for various posts under the existing Rule 266 of the Rules of 1996 and there shall be no violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in the event of extending weightage against service experience; (3)The respondents did not commit any wrong while extending weightage in the form of bonus marks against the service experience as per proviso to Rule 23 of the Rules of 1998 and such grant of weightage in no manner is in violation of Rule 15 of the Rules of 1998; (4)For providing bonus marks there is no need to make any amendment in the qualification prescribed in the Schedule appended with the Rules of 1998. (5)The grant of weightage in the form of bonus marks while making recruitment to the post in the services in question is not at all in contravention of the law laid down in the case of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (supra), and it is also not an effort to frustrate the law laid down in the case aforesaid; and (6)The grant of bonus marks to the extent of 30 marks is unjust, arbitrary and unfair, hence, is declared illegal and is quashed. The State Government may grant the weightage in the form of bonus marks against service experience within the cap of 15 marks. With the answers above, let the writ petition i.e. SB Civil Writ Petition No.4144/2013, Archana v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., be placed before Single Bench for its adjudication on other merits of the case. DB Civil Special Appeal No.630/2013, State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Archana and Anr.; SB Civil Writ Petition No.9780/2013, Virendra Ragwani v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.; SB Civil Writ Petition No.10236/2013, Ranveer Deharu and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., and DB Civil Writ Petition No.5583/2013, Nagendra Singh Chouhan v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., stand dismissed. (VIJAY BISHNOI), J. (GOVIND MATHUR), J." 2. The matter was thus restored to the Single Bench with the aforesaid answer to the questions raised and that is why the petition came up before this Court again today. 3. The learned AAG has submitted that the State Government has filed SLP against the order of the Division Bench of this Court dtd.25.9.2013, bearing No.32008 -32009/2013 - State of Rajasthan and ors. V/s Archana, besides the said petitioner has also filed SLP against the said order and the aforesaid two SLPs are pending before the Hon'ble Spreme Court with the following interim order passed on 8.10.2013. "Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.32008 -32009/2013 (From the judgment and order dated 25/09/2013 in DBCWP No.4144/2013, DBCWP No.9780/2013 of the HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR). STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS ARCHANA ETC. Respondent(s) (With appln(s) for exemption from filing O.T. And with prayer for interim relief) Date:08/10/2013 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR For Petitioner(s) Mr.Soli Sorabjee, Sr. Advocate. Dr.Manish Singhvi, AAG, Raj. Mr.Amit Lubhaya, Adv. for Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Adv. For Respondent(s) Upon hearing counsel the Court made the following ORDER Taken on Board. Heard Mr. Sorabjee, learned senior counsel in support of this special leave petition. Issue notice returnable in four weeks. In the meanwhile and until further orders, the Rural Employment Assistants who are presently working, will not be terminated from their services in pursuance of the order passed by the High Court. (A.S.Bisht) (Sneh Lata Sharma) Court Master Court Master." 4. Both the learned counsels have agreed that the present writ petition may be disposed of in light of the judgment of Division Bench dtd.25.9.2013 subject to the right of the petitioner to approach this Court again in case occasion so arises after the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court about the question of bonus marks to be given to such petitioners. 5. The limited relief on factual claim in the present writ petition was that the Experience Certificate, which was required to be submitted before the cut off date on 22.3.2013, which was later on extended to 18.4.2013 was also required to be extended and counter -signed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jodhpur for a period upto the date of application before the extended cut off date on 18.4.2013. 6. The petitioner apparently has already filed a representation or application to the concerned authority vide Annex.9 dtd.12.4.2013 to the respondent No.8 - Project Manager cum Executive Engineer,but since no order was passed thereon, the petitioner has approached this Court on 18.4.2013, shortly thereafter. 7. In the circumstances of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.8 ­ Watershed Cell cum Data Center, Zila Parishad, Jodhpur to pass appropriate orders on the said representation Annex.9 dtd.12.4.2013 of the petitioner in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 8. In case any grievance still remains to the petitioner, after the Supreme Court decides the aforesaid SLPs, the petitioner would be free to avail appropriate legal remedy. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned forthwith."
(3.) IN view of above, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents that in the event of filing any representation by the petitioner for his grievance, the said representation may be decided strictly in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. However, it is made it clear that for the benefits of bonus marks, the respondents shall comply the directions given by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above pending case.;