Rajasthan High Court

Ranu Pandya D/O Vipin Pandya vs The State Of Rajasthan Through Its ... on 9 December, 2021

Bench: Rekha Borana

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21060/2018

1.      Ranu Pandya D/o Vipin Pandya, Aged About 22 Years, R/o
        Village And Post Mandav, Tehsil Sagwara, Dungarpur
        (Raj.)
2.      Arnika Jain D/o Rajendra Kumar Kotia, Aged About 24
        Years, R/o Pratiksha Holli Chowk, Dadooka, Tehsil
        Dadooka, Banswara
3.      Vijay Singh S/o Prabat Singh Rathore, Aged About 36
        Years, R/o Village And Post Jogiwara, Tehsil Sabla, District
        Dungarpur (Raj.)
                                                                    ----Petitioners
                                     Versus
1.      The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary,
        Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan,
        Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.      The Director, Primary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

3.      The Board Of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer
        Through Its Secretary, Ajmer
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Dr. Ganesh Parihar, AAG with Mr. Dron Yadav, Advocate

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Order

09/12/2021

The present writ petition has been filed by the

petitioners alleging that they have applied for the Rajasthan

Eligibility Examination for Teachers - 2017 (for short 'the REET-2017')

in pursuance to the advertisement dated 02.04.2018 for the post of

Teacher Grade-III. The petitioners are physically disabled candidates

and their case is that despite securing 50% marks in REET -2017, they

were declared ineligible. The petitioners have filed this writ petition with

the prayer to grant relaxation to physically disabled candidates in

(2 of 6) [CW-21060/2018]

minimum pass marks of REET- 2017 Examination in terms of

Order/Circular dated 23.03.2011 (Annexure-10) issued by the

Government of Rajasthan. Order/Circular dated 23.03.2011 reads as

under :-

"Concessions to the persons belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, Other Backward Classes, differently able to persons etc.

(a) 10% concession may be given to all the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, Special Backward Classes, and all women belonging to the General Category.

(b) 15% concession may be given to all the women belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, Special Backward Classes, and all widowed and divorced women.

(c) 20% concession may be given to all the persons covered under the definition of "person with disability" with clause (t) of Section 2 of the Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation Act, 1995)"

The petitioners have in the alternative prayed for grant of

5% relaxation to them, being physically disabled candidates.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon

the judgment dated 22.07.2019 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of

this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4907/2019 : National

Federation of the Blind and Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

connected with other matters. The same was a Public Interest

Litigation in which while dealing with the Order/Circular dated

23.03.2011, the Division Bench held as under :-

"8. The State of Rajasthan has resisted these proceedings; yet it has nowhere indicated how and in what circumstances there was a policy change and as to what is its new policy. The thinking reflected in its policy dated 23.03.2011, therefore, continues - in our opinion, to be the "extant" policy with respect to concession to be granted to persons with disabilities such as those represented by the petitioner organizations.

(3 of 6) [CW-21060/2018]

9. In these circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the benefit of the 20% concession, enure and have to be granted by the State of Rajasthan in the ongoing recruitment in REET Examination, to the extent of unfilled vacancies (for year 2017) and in the ongoing process initiated in the year 2019.

12. In the light of the above discussion, a direction is issued to the second respondent- Rajasthan Secondary Education Board to carry out the exercise of revising the results of the REET, 2015 and REET, 2017, after giving appropriate concession of 20% to the qualifying marks. Based upon such result, the State of Rajasthan shall review the select list for 2018 (to the post of Teacher Grade III, Level I and II). The Board shall complete this exercise within eight weeks; results shall be correctly transmitted to the State and also appropriately published. Thereafter, the State shall complete the review within another eight weeks thereafter, and take appropriate consequential action towards processing the results for selection and issuing appointment letters within the prescribed percentage under the Act, as advertised.

13. The writ petitions are allowed; in the above terms. All applications are disposed of."

Learned counsel for the petitioner has averred that in view

of the ratio as laid down in the case of National Federation of the

Blind (supra), the present petitioners deserve to be granted the

concession in terms of the Order/Circular dated 23.03.2011.

Learned counsel for the respondents have controverted the

above mentioned facts and stated that as in the basic advertisement

itself, there was a specific eligibility requirement for a candidate to have

obtained 60% marks, the same cannot be ignored and it has been

strictly complied with as the petitioners were not found to be eligible in

terms of the eligibility criteria as required by the advertisement as also

required by the Circulars dated 23.03.2011, 17.05.2012 and

27.10.2015. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the

respondents that the judgment passed by the Division Bench in the case

of National Federation of the Blind (supra) is applicable only to the

(4 of 6) [CW-21060/2018]

blind people as the said petition was filed by the National Federation of

the Blind.

In compliance of the order passed by the Division Bench in

the case of National Federation of the Blind (supra), the department

issued appointment letters to the eligible blind people and argued that

the ratio of the above judgment cannot be said to be applicable to the

other disabled people too.

Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance

upon the judgment dated 06.09.2019 passed by the Division Bench of

this Court in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 515/2019 : Nikki and

Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

So far as the judgment of Nikki (supra) relied upon by the

learned counsel for the respondents is concerned, a perusal of the same

shows that it was the matter wherein the candidates of the TSP

(General) category who secured less than 60% marks in REET/RTET

were considered against the vacancies reserved for ST category and the

State's action did not violate any provisions in that regard. The issue

concerned in the judgment of Nikki (supra) cannot be said to be

connected in any manner with the present controversy. The controversy

involved therein pertains only to the consideration of the ST category

candidates against the TSP(General) category.

A perusal of the notification dated 27.12.2016 issued by the

Central Government does not talk of any discrimination between any

category or class of disabled people. Section 2 (r) & (t) of the

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short 'the Act of

2016') reads as under:-

(5 of 6) [CW-21060/2018]

"2(r) "person with benchmark disability" means a person with not less than forty per cent of a specified disability where specified disability has not been defined in measurable terms and includes a person with disability where specified disability has been defined in measurable terms, as certified by the certifying authority;

(t) "person with disability having high support needs" means a person with benchmark disability certified under clause (a) of sub- section (2) of Section 58 who needs high support;"

The above definition also does not make any

discrimination between the blind people or the persons having any

locomotive disability or other disability. The provision just talks

about disability and not of any specific category. The judgment as

passed by the Division Bench in the case of National Federation

of the Blind (supra) also does not distinguish between any class

or category of disabled people. It specific talks of disability as

mentioned in the Act of 2016 and that ipso facto implies all the

disabled people. Therefore, the averments of the respondents that

the said ratio would be applicable only for the blind people cannot

be accepted. It is an admitted fact that the judgment passed in

the case of National Federation of the Blind (supra) has not