Rajasthan High Court

Smt. Renu Chauhan W/O Shri Ajay ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 20 January, 2021

Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma

                                        (1 of 4)                  [CW-12512/2019]


       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12512/2019

Smt. Renu Chauhan W/o Shri Ajay Singh Parmar, Aged About 29
Years, Resident Of Haveli Thok, Basedi District Dholpur (Raj.)
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary,
       Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
       (Panchayati Raj), Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
       Jaipur.
2.     Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dholpur.
3.     Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. S.N. Kumawat
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Bharat Saini, AGC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

Order

20/01/2021

Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner's

candidature was denied on account of petitioner having English as

a compulsory paper instead of English as an optional paper for the

post of Teacher Grade-III. The issue is no more res integra in view

of the judgment passed in SBCWP No.13707/2018: Komal

Purohit Versus State of Rajasthan and connected petitions

decided on 12.10.2018 by the Coordinate Bench, Principal Seat,

Jodhpur wherein this Court has held as under:-

"A perusal of the report (Annex.-R/1) reveals that a general observation has been made that in compulsory subject normally the study is non-detailed, whereas in case of optional subject, the study is detailed. Whereafter, the requirement of the Rules was noticed and relying on the judgment in the case of Saroj (supra), the committee came to the conclusion that

(2 of 4) [CW-12512/2019]

those having passed graduation with subject as compulsory cannot be equated with those having done graduation with subject as optional. However, a perusal of the said report clearly indicates that the notification/circular issued in the year 1977 by the State produced as Annex.-8 in SBCW No.12560/2018 was not brought to the notice of the committee and the judgment of the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench in case of Deepak Bariya (supra) was also not brought to the notice of the committee.

In the case of Deepak Bariya (supra), the learned Single Judge after considering identical qualification for the post of Senior Teacher Grade-II (English) the fact that the candidate had English as compulsory subject at graduation level and that he had done post graduation in English, came to the following conclusion:-

"Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner not only had the requisite subject in his Graduation but the requirement that the said subject of English should have been offered as his optional subject in Graduation cannot be insisted upon in view of the petitioner having cleared his Post Graduation in the subject of English. The petitioner thus, has higher qualification as prescribed for the post for the purpose of teaching up to Secondary Level."

It was, inter alia, observed by the Court that the respondents cannot insist for subject English as optional subject in graduation in view of the petitioner having cleared his post graduation in subject English.

When the matter was taken to the Division Bench, the Division Bench in State v. Deepak Bariya (supra), followed the judgment in the appeal filed by RPSC against the same impugned order. The determination of the Division Bench reads as under:-

"1.Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2.Issue which arises for consideration is whether a candidate who opts for a subject as a compulsory subject in graduation Course would be ineligible in terms of the qualification prescribed by the appellant which states that the candidate should have cleared a Graduation Degree in the concerned subject with English as an optional Subject.3.The respondents have a graduation degree which shows that he had chosen English as a compulsory paper in the First, Second and Third Year of the three years Graduation Course.4.It is trite that a rule has to be applied meaningfully and practically. The reason behind a rule needs to be ascertained to give meaning to a Rule.5.As is known to one and all a

(3 of 4) [CW-12512/2019]

person who clears Bachelor of Arts, Graduation Examination can opt for various disciplines such as History, Geography, Political Science, Social Science, English, Hindi, Psychology etc. 6.The University has given option to the candidates to opt for compulsory and optional Subject. The reason is a person desirous of acquiring better knowledge, to say History and Political Science, opts for the two as compulsory Subject and for others as optional subject. 7.The idea behind the rule in question framed by the appellant is to ensure that the candidate concerned has adequate knowledge in the Subject for which the candidate offers candidature to be appointed as a Teacher.8.Since the respondent have opted for English as a compulsory subject in the graduation Course, the object of the rules is satisfied. Thus, we find no infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The impugned order dated 26.05.2017 is upheld.9.The writ petition is dismissed in limine."

(emphasis supplied) A perusal of the above Division Bench judgment would reveal that the Court noticed the issue about ineligibility of the candidates, who opt for a subject as a compulsory subject in graduation course and the requirement is of the subject as an optional subject, came to a categorical conclusion that the candidate having opted for English as a compulsory subject in the graduation course, the object of the Rules is satisfied.

Once the Division Bench based on its interpretation of the identical Rule/requirement, came to the conclusion that a candidate having opted for English as a compulsory subject in the graduation course satisfied the object of the Rules, the determination made by the respondents holding the petitioners as ineligible cannot be sustained.

So far as the judgment in the case of Saroj (supra) is concerned, though the same apparently was not cited before the Division Bench, in view of the Division Bench judgment in the case of Deepak Bariya (supra), the judgment in the case of Saroj (supra) has lost its efficacy and, therefore, the determination made by the committee relying on the judgment in the case of Saroj (supra) in ignorance of the Division Bench judgment in the case of Deepak Bariya (supra), cannot be sustained.

Consequently, the action of the respondents in insisting for English as optional subject at the graduation level and holding the candidates like the petitioners, who have studied English as compulsory subject at the graduation level, cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside."

(4 of 4) [CW-12512/2019]

The aforesaid judgment of Komal Purohit (supra) was

examined by the Division Bench in D.B. Special Appeal

No.1943/2018 and the SAW was dismissed vide order dated

18.12.2018.

Keeping in view above, the present writ petition is allowed.

The petitioner shall now be considered for appointment on the

post of Teacher Grade-III and the order dated 27.5.2019 is

quashed and set aside. Qualification of M.A. (English) would be

considered for the purpose of appointment on the post of Teacher

Grade-III (Level-2) in English. The appointment given to the

petitioner would be from the date other similarly situated