SHIV KUMAR SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal impugns the judgment dated January 9, 1998 of the learned Single Judge whereby writ petitions filed by Ashok Kumar Jain (present appellant) and three others namely Davendra Kumar Pokarna, Rajeev Ajmera and Shiv Kumar, against the Rajasthan Financial Corporation, (in short RFC), Executive Director of RFC and Selection Committee constituted for selection of Depty Manager (Finance) in pursuance to the advertisement dated September 7, 1991, issued by the RFC, were dismissed and the prayer of appellant to appoint him as Deputy Manager (Finance) on the touchstone of the criteria laid down by the respondents and to award him 20 marks under the head of 'Experience', was rejected.
(2.) THE appeal is primarily founded on the ground that if the appellant was given marks according to the formula fixed by the respondents, he would have secured 20 marks under the head of 'Experience'. When 20 marks are added to the marks obtained by the appellant under the three heads, he would secure 69 marks, more than the marks awarded to the private respondents No. 7 and 12, who were not holding 'responsible position' as they were clerical employees of 'B' Class being 'Assistant' and 'Junior Assistant' in RFC and were not entitled to 20 marks under the head of 'Experience'. In the circumstances therefore the appellant was entitled to be appointed as Deputy Manager (Finance) on the touchstone of criteria laid down by the respondents themselves and learned Single Judge was not right in rejecting the writ petition. Before adverting to the rival submissions, we at the outset, deem it appropriate to notice the order dated March 20, 2003 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal No. 502, 1998 preferred by Rajeev Ajmera against the said order of learned Single Judge dated January 9, 1998. The operative part of D.B. Judgment reads as under - - Thus, if the appellants were given marks according to the criteria, fixed by the respondents, he would have secured 20 marks under the head 'Experience'. When 20 marks are added to the marks obtained by the appellant under the three heads, he would secure 64 marks. Thus, he will have one more mark than the last selected candidate. This position cannot be legitimately denied by the respondents, when the criteria for assessing the inter se merits of the candidates, was laid down by them. Therefore they are bound to follow the aforesaid criteria. Their actions can only be judged on the basis of the criteria, laid down by them. There is no explanation, why the appellant was granted only 13 marks for experience, when actually, he should have been given 20 marks. In the circumstances, therefore, the appellant was entitled to be appointed as Assistant Manager, on the touchstone of the criteria, laid down by the respondents. The learned Single Judge was not right in rejecting the writ petition of the appellant. The appellant was denied appointment to the post of Assistant Manager (Finance), which should have been made available to him, 10 years back. He has lost 10 years of his service against the higher post, for no fault of his. In the circumstances, the appellant has to be restored to the position, which he would have acquired 10 years back, at least, for granting notional benefits. We are giving the appellant, notional benefits, for the reason that the appellant did not work against the higher post. In the circumstances, the principle of 'no work, no pay' must apply. However, since the appellant ought to have been appointed to the post, 10 years back, we are of the view that the appellant would be entitled to reasonable compensation, for the lost years. Accordingly we set aside the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 9th January, 1998 qua the appellant, and direct as follows: 1. The appellant shall be appointed to the post of Assistant Manager (Finance), in the Corporation, w.e.f. 16th May, 1992, when the candidate, with 63 marks, was appointed. The appointment, however, from the date, would be a notional appointment only, for the purposes of seniority. 2. The appellant shall be paid compensation of Rs. 30,000/ - on account of failure of the respondents, for not granting appointment to the appellant, though, he deserved the same on the basis of merit. 3. With the aforesaid directions, the appeal stands disposed of.
(3.) WE are told by learned Counsel for the RFC that the above order was implemented in letter and spirit by RFC and Rajeev Ajmera was appointed as Assistant Manager (Finance) w.e.f. May 16, 1992. Learned Counsel placed relevant record for our perusal and we noticed that on the advise of its counsel, RFC did not file S.L.P. against the said order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and allowed the order to attain finality.;