Amit Bishnoi vs The Rajasthan Public Service ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 5830 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12041/2020

Amit Bishnoi S/o Late Shri Vatan Singh Bishnoi, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Opposite Sardar Doon Public School, Hakim Bag, Sardarpura, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

2. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer.

3. The Director, Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Bikaner.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Kuldeep Mathur
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Taurn Joshi, through VC.
                               Mr. Vishal Jangid



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

                                    Order

01/03/2021

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved

against action of the respondent-RPSC in not forwarding the name

of the petitioner for the purpose of appointment on the post of

Senior Teacher (Grade-II) in subject English.

A direction has been sought to the RPSC to forward the

name of the petitioner for the purpose of the appointment on the

post of Senior Teacher (Grade-II).

It is inter alia indicated in the writ petition that pursuant to

the recruitment to the post of Senior Teacher (Grade-II), the

petitioner applied in the category of Ex-serviceman. The result

(2 of 5) [CW-12041/2020]

was declared and the petitioner was called for counseling vide Ex.-

7, wherein, the petitioner indicated his qualifications. Pursuant to

the counseling, the result was declared on 17.02.2020 (Annexure-

8) and though the petitioner had obtained more marks than the

cut off as indicated, he was not accorded appointment.

Based on the said facts the petition was filed seeking to

question the action of RPSC in not recommending the name of the

petitioner.

A reply to the writ petition has been filed by respondent-

RPSC and the crux of the response is contained in para-6 of the

reply which reads-as-under:

"6. That it is a normal procedure that when in service persons pursuing the educational qualification, the same has to be done after having obtained the NOC from the department concerned, since in the present case, the petitioner had not submitted any documents saying that he had obtained NOC or approval from his department to pursue the degree of B.Ed. The said degree obtained by the petitioner does not inspire confidence. That it is further to relevant here that as per the discharge book submitted by the petitioner along with the writ petition clearly has an entry of his qualification at entry in the service which is stated to be matriculation whereas the qualification acquired during course of service as per entry in discharge book shows BA which makes the qualification of B.Ed. as claimed to by petitioner further more doubtful. It is further respectfully that the candidature of the petitioner has yet not been rejected and if the petitioner submits the relevant documents i.e. NOC obtained from the department concerned, the case of the petitioner may be considered as ex-serviceman candidate. In absence of such document, the candidature of the petitioner cannot be considered and that the candidature of the petitioner would have to be rejected on the ground of not submitted the requisite documents. In view thereof, the writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be dismissed."

(emphasis added)

Learned counsel for the petitioner, with reference to the

degree obtained by him Annexure-4, indicates that petitioner

(3 of 5) [CW-12041/2020]

while in service was posted at Kashmir and has obtained the

degree from University of Kashmir.

Submissions have been made that merely because in the

service book of the petitioner filed as Annexure-6 with the writ

petition, the said degree of B.Ed. of the petitioner at the time of

discharge has not been indicated, cannot mean that the petitioner

does not hold the said degree.

Submissions have been made that merely because the NOC

was not taken by the petitioner while pursuing his studies, which

resulted in the degree Annexure-4, cannot be a reason to deny

the petitioner, the benefit of the said degree and holding him not

qualified for the post of Senior Teacher (Grade-II).

Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Rajbala v.

State of Rajasthan : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1858/1993,

decided on 24.08.2005.

Learned counsel appearing for the RPSC reiterated the

submissions as noticed, here-in-before, that the degree indicates

that the petitioner had pursued his course through 'regular mode'

and the fact that he was in Armed Forces, the pursuing degree in

a regular mode does not inspire confidence and, therefore, the

appointment of the petitioner, was withheld.

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 where the petitioner rely on a Degree

issued by University of Kashmir for Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.),

which is the qualification for the post of Senior Teacher (Grade-II).

It is also not in dispute that in the category of the petitioner i.e.

Ex-serviceman, in which category the petitioner falls in merit.

(4 of 5) [CW-12041/2020]

The only reason why the name of the petitioner has not been

recommended, as noticed here-in-before is that the petitioner did

not submit any documents indicating that he had obtained NOC

from his department to pursue the degree of B.Ed.

Learned counsel for the respondent-RPSC failed to point out

any statutory requirement, wherein, if a candidate acquires any

qualification during the course of his employment, for him being

qualified for the said post, he is required to produce NOC from the

department for having pursued the said degree.

However, the submission made is that the degree obtained

by the petitioner does not inspire confidence.

The submission made that the degree does not inspire

confidence can be taken care of by the RPSC by making inquires

from the University of Kashmir and / or calling upon the petitioner

to produce further documents. Merely based on its assumption

that the degree has not been obtained by the proper means, the

RPSC could not have declined to forward the name of the

petitioner, despite him appearing in merit in his category.

This Court in the case of Rajbala (supra), in a similar nature

case, inter alia came to the following conclusion:

"5. The stand of the respondents to the effect that the B.Ed. Degree from M.D.S. University was obtained by the petitioner without permission of the employer is also of no consequence as it may be a reason for initiating disciplinary action but once the petitioner acquired the aforesaid degree, it cannot be said that she has not possessing a valid degree. In view of it, the petitioner is certainly eligible to hold the post of Teacher Gr. III"

In view of the above discussion, the petition filed by the

petitioner is allowed. The respondent-RPSC is directed to make

(5 of 5) [CW-12041/2020]

requisite inquiry pertaining to the degree of the petitioner and in

consequence thereof, pass appropriate orders for forwarding the

name of the petitioner in terms of his merit for appointment.

The needful may be done by the RPSC within a period of 4

weeks.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 16-Sachin/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)