Back
: Improved Marks in Must Be Considered for
Setting aside a Single Judge’s order, the has held that improved marks obtained through or relate back to the date of the original qualification and must be considered for determining . A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice G. S. Sandhawalia and Justice Chirag Bhanu Singh directed the state to appoint appellant Ishan Dogra as Van Mitra against one of two vacant posts.
A Tale of Two Certificates
The dispute arose during the selection process for the post of Van Mitra in the Mashnoo beat of Rampur Forest Circle. When Ishan Dogra initially applied, he submitted a certificate dated from the showing 390 marks out of 500. However, at the time of counselling, he produced a digitised certificate dated from the same Board reflecting 409 marks – the result of an . On this basis, his was overlooked in favour of the private respondent, who had secured 79% against Dogra’s improved 81.1%.
The appellant challenged the rejection before a Single Judge, who dismissed his writ petition with a cost of ₹5,000, finding that Dogra had not come with by failing to disclose the improved certificate in his initial application.
The Legal Principle:
The Division Bench found that the Single Judge had decided the matter without proper pleadings, as the state had not filed a reply. More importantly, the court held that the improved marks could not be ignored. Relying on the ’s judgment in Nidhi Sharma v. Guru Nanak Dev University (2004), the Bench observed: “where the marks have been improved in re-valuation, it could relate back to the date of the earlier examination.” This principle was further affirmed in Preeti Gulia v. State of Haryana (2013), where the court held that improvement of a score relates back to the date on which the qualification was acquired.
The Bench also drew support from the ’s three-Judge decision in Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE (2004), which held that while eligibility must generally be possessed by the last date fixed, there can be relaxation in the matter of submitting proof. The relevant passage was quoted:
“Every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of .”
No Doubt About Veracity
The court noted that both certificates were issued by the same Board and that there was no dispute regarding the genuineness of the second certificate. The only reason the earlier certificate was relied upon was the . “This aspect apparently, which is purely legal, had missed the attention of the authorities,” the court remarked.
Practical Relief
Given that the private respondent was not at fault, the court sought an from the state regarding vacancies. The state confirmed two available posts in the . The court directed that Dogra be appointed against one of these posts, relaxing the usual residency requirement since Dogra, a resident of adjoining Rampur, had expressed willingness. However, the court clarified that he would not be entitled to any benefit of or service benefits prior to the date of the . The cost of ₹5,000 imposed by the Single Judge was set aside and ordered to be refunded if already deposited.
The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the Single Judge was set aside. The state has been directed to complete the appointment within four weeks.
