[2025:RJ-JP:28077] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 442/2016 Soni Lal Meena S/o Shri Nanag Ram Meena, Village Chak Indragarh Post Indergarh, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Secreta 2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its Secretary. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Banwari Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Namita Parihar, Dy. GC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 25/07/2025 1. Instant civil writ petition was filed by petitioner on 06.01.2016, raising a grievance that he has not been awarded appropriate marks for his sports certificates, while determining merits of his candidature for appointment on the post of Physical Training Instructor (PTI) Gr. III under ST- Outstanding Sports Person category, pursuant to vacancies advertised in the year 2011. However, counsel for petitioner admits that later on, pursuant to directions issued by this Court, vide order dated 15.02.2018, sports certificates of petitioner were reconsidered and he has been awarded four marks, thereby he has been declared to be in merits and his name has been recommended by RPSC. [2025:RJ-JP:28077] (2 of 3) [CW-442/2016] Thereafter, appointment to petitioner has been given, vide order dated 07.03.2018. 2. The only grievance, which survives and has been raised by counsel for petitioner, is that petitioner should be awarded actual monetary benefits at par with the other selected candidates in the merit list, pursuant to present recruitment, since delay in granting appointment to petitioner, is not attributable to him. 3. Having perused the record, it appears that result of present recruitment was revised time and again. Firstly, the result was declared by RPSC on 19.01.2013, then on 14.02.2013, then on 28.06.2013, then on 16.12.2014 and finally on 27.08.2017. As per Additional Affidavit of petitioner dated 06.02.2018, petitioner scored 198.88 marks. In the result dated 16.12.2014, last cut off marks under ST category was 201.19, which has further been reduced to 199.53 in the revised result dated 27.08.2017. Thus, if petitioner would have been awarded minimum four marks for his sports certificate, he ought to have been selected in the revised merit list dated 16.12.2014. 4. This Court further finds that as per reply to the writ petition filed by the respondents- State Authorities and RPSC, it is not clear that error in awarding appropriate marks to petitioner for his sports certificate, occurred at which level. Petitioner is claiming marks for his sports certificate, ranging from 16 to 4, depending on his participation in the District Level and Inter College Level Wrestling Competition. 5. Be that as it may, pursuant to directions issued by this Court, vide order dated 15.02.2018, petitioner has been awarded four marks for his sports certificate and his name has been [2025:RJ-JP:28077] (3 of 3) [CW-442/2016] recommended by the RPSC, vide letter dated 21.02.2018 (Ann. R/2) and in pursuance thereof, petitioner has been given appointment, vide order dated 07.03.2018 on the post of PTI Gr. III under ST- Outstanding Sports Person category. 6. Having considered the conspectus of the entire factual matrix, this Court does not find any mala fides in not awarding appropriate marks to petitioner for his sports certificate at appropriate time. It may be a case of bona fide error or inadvertent error on the part of the Committee, constituted by State Authorities or RPSC. The factual matrix in this respect, has not come on record before this Court. Hence, respondents too may not be ex facie declared at fault in not awarding marks to petitioner for his sports certificate. However, since petitioner has been given appointment vide order dated 07.03.2018 and is receiving actual benefits therefrom, it is hereby observed that for the previous period, petitioner shall be entitled for notional benefits at par with other candidates, selected in the revised result dated 16.12.2014. 7. No other issue remains for adjudication in instant writ petition by this Court, hence, same stands disposed of with the aforesaid direction. 8. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J Sachin/83