Heard learned advocates for the parties.
The petitioner had applied for the post of Primary Teacher pursuant to the advertisement published by respondent herein. The petitioner states that apart from the educational qualification of SSC & PTC, the petitioner also possessed additional qualification of Drawing Teacher's Certificate, and Hindi Kovid Examination. The petitioner claims that he was entitled to two additional marks for each of the above referred additional qualifications. Thus, according to the petitioner, in view of the norms set by the Government, the petitioner had obtained 68.04 percent marks. However, his qualification of Drawing Teacher's Certificate [hereinafter referred to as "DTC"] was not considered by the respondent and the petitioner was given only 66.04 percent marks. In view of the loss of two additional marks to which the petitioner was otherwise entitled, the petitioner has lost an opportunity of employment under the respondent. Mr. Shah submits that the petitioner had annexed copies of all the relevant certificates alongwith his application and had also produced the original certificates for perusal by the respondent at the time of interview. There was no earthly reason for the respondent to ignore the petitioner's additional qualification of DTC. However, with an ulterior intention, the respondent deliberately ignored the petitioner's additional qualification of DTC and has not given the additional two marks for the said qualification.
2.Claim of the petitioner has been resisted by the respondent. It is submitted that the petitioner had not annexed copy of the DTC to his application and had not produced original certificate for perusal by the competent authority at the time of interview. In that view of the matter, on account of want of certificate, the petitioner was not given additional marks for additional qualification of DTC as claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner disputes the contention raised by the respondent. However, the petitioner has no evidence to support his contention. The respondent produced a copy of rojkam wherein marks have been entered against each of the candidates in accordance with the certificate submitted by them. Thus, in view of the above referred disputed question of fact, this petition cannot be entertained. The petition is summarily rejected. Notice is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.
27.9.1996. [Ms. R.M.Doshit,J.] vyas