Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Varsha Kumari vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 December, 2021

Bench: Arun Bhansali

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13596/2021 Varsha Kumari D/o Shri Arjun Singh, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of 23, Bali Road, Sokra Perwa, Tehsil Bali, District Pali.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Education Department, (Group2) Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.

3. The Joint Director, (Personnel) School Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Bikaner.

4. District Education Officer, (Headquarter), Pali.

5. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Pali.

                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :    Mr. Rishabh Tayal
                                  Mr. Jitendra Choudhary.
For Respondent(s)            :    Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG with
                                  Mr. Rishi Soni & Mr. Deepak Chandak


        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
                       Order
15/12/2021

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a

direction to the respondents to provide appointment to the

petitioner on the post of Teacher Gr.III (Level-II) (English)

pursuant to her selection dated 20.08.2018 with all consequential

benefits from the date when the persons securing lessor merit

than the petitioner have been provided appointment.

It is, inter-alia, indicated in the writ petition that the

petitioner completed her graduation in Commerce (B.Com.) from

Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli, Tamilnadu and

cleared REET in the year 2015, was qualified for appointment to

the post of Teacher Level-II in English. Pursuant to the

advertisement dated 11.09.2017 for Non-TSP area, the petitioner

applied.

(2 of 8) [CW-13596/2021]

The result was declared alongwith the cut-off marks for each

category and as petitioner secured higher marks than the cut-off,

the name of the petitioner appeared in the list of candidates, who

were called for document verification. Subsequently, the petitioner

was allotted District Pali by order dated 02.02.2018. The petitioner

appeared for document verification.

The result came to be reshuffled, whereby the cut off for

different categories were revised and in the petitioner's category,

after revision the name of the petitioner was again reflected

showing the name of the petitioner as successful and indicating

district allotment.

However, during course of document verification, the

candidature of the petitioner was kept pending by the document

verification board for instructions from the higher authorities,

which led to the petitioner filing SBCWP No.16657/2018, which

came to be decided by order dated 02.11.2018, wherein based on

the submissions that the issue raised in the petition was squarely

covered by the judgment in Komal Purohit v. State of Rajasthan &

Ors. : SBCWP No.13707/2018, decided on 12.10.2018, the

petition was allowed with similar relief as granted in the case of

Komal Purohit (supra). However, despite the order dated

02.11.2018, the petitioner was not granted the relief, which led to

the petitioner filing the present writ petition.

On notice being issued, learned Additional Advocate General

indicated that the committee was yet to take decision and that

post was lying vacant.

During course of pendency of the present writ petition, the

Director, Primary Education has passed an order dated 30.11.2021

(Annex.-R/1), inter-alia, rejecting the representation of the

(3 of 8) [CW-13596/2021]

petitioner observing that in the case of Komal Purohit (supra), as

the applicant therein had English as compulsory subject in all the

three years, as subject English in the case of the petitioner herein

was not as optional / compulsory in all the three years, she was

not entitled for appointment and the application was rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the

action of the respondents in rejecting the candidature of the

petitioner merely on account of the fact that the petitioner had

purportedly not studied English either as optional / compulsory

subject in 'all the three years', is not justified.

With reference to the mark-sheets (Annex.1), it was

submitted that out of six semesters, the petitioner had studied

subject English in four semesters and she had, inter-alia, eight

papers relating to subject English during the four years, which she

had passed.

Submissions have been made that the eligibility norms, did

not require that the candidates should have studied the subject in

all the three years of study and as such, the same cannot be read

into the eligibility norms. It was indicated that it depends on the

syllabus of each individual University as to how requisite

curriculum is taught i.e. whether the same is taught within two

years or is spread over three years, which depends on the

University, the same cannot be a reason for denying the

appointment to the petitioner.

Submissions were made that the rejection of the

representation of the petitioner, only on account of the fact that in

the case of Komal Purohit (supra), the subject English was studied

as compulsory subject in all the three years, cannot a reason

enough to reject the candidature of the petitioner and therefore,

(4 of 8) [CW-13596/2021]

the order impugned deserves to be set-aside and the petition

deserves to be allowed.

Reliance was placed on Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. v.

Sachin Gupta : W.P.(C) 1520/2012, decided on 07.08.2013 by the

Division Bench of Delhi High Court and State of Rajasthan & Ors.

v. Gaya Shri : D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1373/2019, decided

on 04.09.2021 besides Srishti v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. :

W.P. (C) 10392/2016, decided on 23.05.2017 of Division Bench of

Delhi High Court.

Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the

respondents contested the plea raised by the petitioner.

Submissions were made that from the mark-sheets, it is

apparent that the petitioner has not studied English for all the

three years and in the case of Komal Purohit (supra), this Court

had taken into consideration that English subject was offered as a

compulsory subject, which was required to be studied in all the

three years and marks were added in the grand total, based on

which the relief was granted by the Court.

Further in Pradeep Jangir v. State of Rajasthan : 2021(1)

WLC (Raj.) 559, the Court came to the conclusion that as the

petitioner had not studied English in all the three years of degree

course, he was not entitled to the relief and as such, the order

impugned passed by the competent authority does not call for any

interference.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

The facts are not in dispute wherein the petitioner has done

her B.Com. from the University at Tamilnadu. During course of her

studies, she had studied subject English in four semesters, out of

(5 of 8) [CW-13596/2021]

six semesters, as is evident from the mark-sheets produced as

Annexure-1. The advertisement in question, required that the

candidate must have passed graduation or equivalent examination

with the corresponding language as an optional subject.

This Court in the case of Komal Purohit (supra), considering

the same eligibility condition, had directed the respondents to

treat the petitioners therein, who had done their graduation with

subject English as compulsory subject as eligible for Teacher Gr.III

(Level-II) for subject English.

Once, the study of the candidates of a particular subject

even as compulsory subject has been treated as equivalent to the

desired eligibility of having studied the subject as optional, the

petitioner, who had studied subject English as compulsory subject

as per the averments made in the petition, was eligible. However,

the respondents by their determination made on 30.11.2021

(Annex.R/1) have distinguished the case of the petitioner by

indicating that she has not studied English in all the three years,

as a compulsory subject and she studied only in two years.

Delhi High Court in the case of Sachin Gupta (supra),

wherein the qualification itself required that the candidates should

have studied the subject concerned in all parts / years of

graduation, came to the following conclusion :-

"41. All universities in India do not offer a particular elective subject in all three years' of graduation course as in the case of Nainika, Vikram Singh and Sachin Gupta, where Delhi University did not teach English/Hindi/Economics in all three years of B.A. program/B.Com (H) course (s) conducted by it. If the corrigendum dated March 30, 2010 is given a literal interpretation, all such candidates who have studied concerned subject i.e. the subject for which they have applied from the Universities which are not teaching said subject in all three years' of Graduation course offered by them would be rendered ineligible for appointment to the post of T.G.T. despite the fact they

(6 of 8) [CW-13596/2021]

have studied the concerned subject in all parts/years in which the subject is taught by the university and have a good understanding thereof. This is absurd. It is a settled legal position that where literal meaning of a statute or rule leads to an absurdity, the principle of literal interpretation need not be followed and recourse should be taken to the purposive and meaningful interpretation to avoid injustice, absurdity and contradiction so that the intent of the purpose of Legislature is given effect to. Therefore, a meaningful and practical interpretation has to be given to the corrigendum dated March 30, 2010 and same should be interpreted as follows: 'the candidate should have studied the subject concerned as mentioned in the RRs in all parts/years in which the subject was taught during the Graduation course"

(emphasis supplied)

From the above, it would be seen that the Court even in a

case where the requirement of having studied the subject in all

the three years of graduation was indicated in the eligibility norms

have interpreted the same as that the candidate should have

studied the subject concerned in all parts / years, in which the

subject was taught during the graduation course.

Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gaya Shri (supra),

while dealing with the same qualification, inter-alia, laid down as

under :-

"1. This intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated 26.11.18 passed by this Court, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant challenging the action of the respondents in not considering her candidature for recruitment to the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level- II) in subject Hindi, has been allowed, while relying upon a Bench decision of this Court in State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Deepak Bariya : D.B.S.A.W. No.598/18, decided on 4.4.18.

It is noticed that as per the advertisement, the eligibility qualification prescribed for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-II) in subject Hindi was as follows :

"B fgUnh ds v/;kid ds fy;s] vH;FkhZ dks oSdfYid fo'k; ds :i esa fgUnh fo'k; ds lkFk Lukrd ;k lerqY; ijh{kk mRrh.kZ fd;k gqvk gksuk pkfg, vkSj vkosfnr fo'k; lfgr [email protected] 60 izfr"kr vadks ds lkFk mRrh.kZ fd;k gqvk gksuk pkfg,A"

The candidature of the appellant is not considered only for the reason that she has studied optional subject Hindi in two years of the graduation course and not for three years. It is pertinent to note that as per the advertisement, the candidate having qualification of graduation with optional subject Hindi or equivalent

(7 of 8) [CW-13596/2021]

qualification is eligible to be considered for appointment on the said post.

Drawing the attention of this Court to the graduation certificate issued by the Allahabad University, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in Allahabad University in first and second year of the course, three optional subjects are permitted and in third year, only two optional subjects are permitted.

It is not disputed that the appellant had optional subject Hindi in two years as per the curriculum provided by the Allahabad University.

The eligibility qualification prescribed does not envisage that a candidate must have relevant optional subject in all the three years of course of studies. We cannot read something in the eligibility qualification prescribed, which is not there and therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge, which is passed following a Bench decision of this court.

The intra-Court appeal is, therefore, dismissed."

(emphasis supplied)

In the above case, the Division Bench in a similar nature plea

raised by the respondents, came to the conclusion that as the

appellant had optional subject Hindi in two years as per the

curriculum provided by the University, as the eligibility

qualification prescribed did not envisage the candidate must have

relevant optional subject in all the three years of course of

studies, the order passed by the Single Judge was not interfered

with.

In view of the above, the plea raised by the respondents

regarding the petitioner having studied subject English in only two

years and as such, she was not qualified cannot be countenanced.

So far as judgment in the case of Komal Purohit (supra) is

concerned, in the said case, the aspect of the candidate having

studied subject English as compulsory subject in all the three

years, was only noted as a fact and it was nowhere indicated that

the candidate should have studied the subject in all the three

(8 of 8) [CW-13596/2021]

years, as such, it cannot be read as an eligibility requirement as

per the above judgment.

Similarly in the case of Pradeep Jingir (supra), the plea