Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) THE controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of a coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Sukh Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP No. 1138/1998, decided on 07.12.2011. The petitioner's services as Teacher were sought to be terminated on account of appointment of one Umesh Jangid, who was earlier not selected as Physical Teacher Gr. II, in the selection process and the present petitioner was also selected like Sukh Ram. In the judgment in the case of Umesh Jangid Vs. State of Rajasthan (CW No. 922/1996, decided on 10.01.1997), itself the learned Single Judge made it clear that while treating the Sport Certificate granted by the University or by the Education Department at par and upon the same being done, the petitioner like Umesh Jangid, if they were to be included in the merit list for appointment, that would not dislocate or result in the termination of the services of other persons already selected and appointed. The relevant extract of the judgment rendered in CW No. 922/1996 -Umesh Jangid Vs. State & Ors., is quoted herein below for ready reference: - The counsel for the respondent vehemently relies on clause 14 of Annexure -R -5 attached to the written statement where on the instructions of the Government, the Director Primary and Secondary Education Rajasthan Banswara vide circular dt. 26th of April 1995, has provided that bonus marks should be given to the holders of the sport certificate mentioned therein as organised by the Education Department. May it be so but there is no bar even in the Circular that similar certificates if are being held or possessed by other candidates issued by universities are not to be respected for granting the bonus marks. The counsel for the petitioner also relied on a Single Bench Judgment in Civil Writ Petition 6283/91 decided (sic! on) 24th of February, 1993 wherein for the admission of physical training course, such like discrimination in regard to the sport certificates, was not appreciated and it was held that the sports certificate issued by the universities be also treated at par with the sport certificates issued by the Education Department, I fully agree with the law laid down in the Civil Writ Petition mention above. In the circumstances in view of the above discussion, it is held that similar level of certificates possessed by any candidate issued by the universities shall fetch the same bonus marks while considering the case of the candidates for the purpose of recruitment to the said post. Any such discrimination is arbitrary and not permissible under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners or any other candidate Holding Inter Universities sport certificates or any other certificate of the same level as has been mentioned in the advertisement shall be awarded the same bonus marks as are being awarded to those candidates who have obtained such certificates from the Education Department and in case they are placed on merits by competing with others. They shall be considered and if selected shall be offered the jobs as per merit list prepared. In case the final selection for the post of in question has already been made and the appointments has already been offered and the person so selected already joined, in that situation it shall be appreciable such like persons so who are placed on merit are considered for appointment for any existing vacancies or the vacancies occurring in future. The learned counsel relies on the authority in Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. ( : 1996(3) SCC 320) wherein it was held that if the selection has already been effected and candidates already selected and appointed then no relief can be given for the present. However, if any vacancy is lying vacant for the relevant period of advertisement, the petitioners would be considered against that. The petition is disposed of with the above directions.
(2.) IN the case of Sukh Ram (supra), the coordinate bench of this Court while discussing the similar position as is obtaining in the present case, held as under: - Heard learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that a regular appointment was given to the petitioner after facing a process of selection and neither in process of selection nor the appointment of the petitioner was subject to final decision of any writ petition or otherwise. It is well settled that the Government servant who is also a holder of civil post cannot be discontinued from service without adhering the procedure given under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short 'the Rules of 1958' hereinafter) or as per provisions of Rule 23A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short 'the Rules of 1951' hereinafter) as the case may be. So far as procedure under the Rules of 1958 is concerned, that is required to be adhered while taking disciplinary action and that is not the eventuality existing in the present case. The respondents have admittedly not exercised power under Rule 23A of the Rules of 1951 also. If the respondents desired to have vacancy to accommodate the persons on higher merit, then too regular procedure to do that should have been adopted, and in case -in -hand that was not done. As such, the termination of the petitioner is apparently bad. Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The order impugned dated 24.3.1998 is quashed. The case of the present is on parity with the case of Sukh Ram (supra). Consequently, the present writ petition also deserves to be disposed of in the same terms and the writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned termination order (Annex. P/3) dated 24.03.1998 and the order (Annex. P/4) dated 01.04.1998 are quashed and set aside. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith.;