(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI) 1. We have heard Mr. G.P. Baghel, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Rakesh R.Patel, learned AGP appearing for the respondents.
2. This letter patent appeal has been filed challenging the orders dated 14th September 2012 and 4th July 2012, passed by the Learned Single Judge in Misc. Civil Application for review No. 2260 of 2012 and Special Civil Application No. 17949 of 2012, respectively.
3. The appellant was appointed as Junior Clerk on 30th May,1998 on compassionate ground. He was required to pass departmental examination, but within three attempts, he could not pass the departmental examination. Therefore, his services were terminated vide order dated 19th August, 2003. The appellant filed Special Civil Application No. 23868 of 2006, for direction to give one more trial. The said Special Civil Application No. 23868 of 2006 was disposed of on 22nd November 2006 with the observation that the petitioner to make a representation to the respondent. Respondent gave 4th chance to the petitioner for appearing in the departmental examination which was held on 15th May, 2008 and the result was declared on 16th May 2008, wherein the petitioner was declared fail in the examination. The examination held on 15th May 2008 was held under the Gujarat Non Secretariat Clerks-Cum-Typist (Training and Examination) Rules. Rule 9A (1) of the said Rule was amended, by which passing marks in the examination became 50%, earlier it was only 45%.
4. The effect of the amendment of Rules was that a candidate was required to secure 50% marks and since the appellant could not obtain 50% marks therefore, he was declared fail.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that 10% marks were to be awarded for good handwriting and cleanliness and according to him these 10% marks have not been awarded. there is no source of information disclosed either into the writ petition or in this appeal to demonstrate that 10% marks for good handwriting and cleanliness have not been awarded. Normal procedure appears that while awarding the marks, good hand writing and cleanliness is taken into account, and no separate marks are to be awarded for good handwriting and cleanliness. The appellant on the basis of documents received by him has informed the Court that the records of the examination have been destroyed. Since the appellant could not secure 50% marks as per the amended rules, which were enforced when the departmental examination was held, which could not be secured by the appellant, he was rightly declared to be fail.
6. We do not find any illegality in the orders passed by the Learned Single Judge. The appeal is devoid of any merits and it is accordingly dismissed.
(V.M.SAHAI, J.) Deepak (S.G.SHAH, J.)