Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Nikhil Kumar Katara vs State Of Rajasthan on 27 April, 2022

Bench: Arun Bhansali

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11710/2021

Nikhil Kumar Katara S/o Mohan Lal Katara, Aged About 27 Years, 285, Royem Fala, V And P Jhalai, Tehsil Simalwara, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat Jaipur.

3. Director, Elementary Education Department, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

4. Zila Parishad Udaipur, Through The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Udaipur.

5. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Udaipur, Rajasthan.

6. District Establishment Committee, Udaipur Chairman.

                                                                     ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Pawan Singh.
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG.
                                  Mr. Deepak Chandak.



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

                                       Order

27/04/2022

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved

against the rejection of his candidature for the post of Teacher

Grade III, Level II, Science-Maths pursuant to advertisement

dated 31.07.2018.

(2 of 8) [CW-11710/2021]

It is inter alia indicated in the petition that the petitioner has

to his credit degree of Bachelor of Science (Special) from Gujarat

University and Master of Science from Gujarat University.

Pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.07.2018 (Annex.3),

the petitioner applied for the post of Teacher Grade III, Level II for

subject Science and Maths.

The eligibility requirements as indicated in the advertisement

are the candidate should have studied at least one subject as

optional subject in graduation or equivalent examination out of the

subjects namely Chemistry, Physics, Botany, Biology, Micro

Biology, Bio Technology, Bio Chemistry and Mathematics.

The name of the petitioner, appeared in the select list dated

28.12.2018 (Annex.7). The petitioner appeared for document

verification, whereafter, apparently the candidature of the

petitioner was rejected on 28.02.2019, without indicating any

reason. Submissions have been that rejection of petitioner's

candidature by the respondents is not justified.

A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents

inter-alia raising objections about the delay in filing of the petition

and inter-alia indicating that as the petitioner had studied subject

Physics in four semesters out of the total six semesters i.e. for two

years out of the three years' program in graduation and had

studied Chemistry only for one year out of three year degree

program, the petitioner did not fulfill the requisite qualification and

as such, rejection of his candidature is justified.

Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the

rejection of petitioner's candidature on the ground indicated in the

reply is not justified, inasmuch as, it depends on the curriculum of

a particular University in graduation, wherein, it can teach the

(3 of 8) [CW-11710/2021]

students a particular subject in four semesters or spread it over

six semesters and as the subject physics has been taught to the

petitioner in four semesters, the petitioner is very much eligible.

Further, submissions have been made that though the

rejection took place on 28.02.2019, no reasons were indicated

therein, which resulted in the delay in filing the present petition.

Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that

the plea regarding the petitioner having been taught the

curriculum within four semesters, is not supported by any material

and that the fact that the reason was not recorded in the order of

rejection of 28.02.2019 existed even when the petition was filed

and, therefore, the delay has not been explained appropriately

and, as such, the petition deserves dismissal.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

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

The requirement of having studied the subject in question,

as per the eligibility norms for all the semesters/years of the

graduation, has already been dealt with by this Court in Varsha

Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.13596/2021, decided on 15.12.2021, wherein, in a similar

nature case, wherein, the petitioner therein had studied subject

English only in four semesters out of six semesters. The Court

came to the conclusion that the petitioner therein was eligible for

the same post of Teacher Grade III (Level II).

It was inter-alia observed and laid down as under:-

"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

(4 of 8) [CW-11710/2021]

English in four semesters, out of 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 have studied the concerned subject in all parts/years in which the subject is taught by the university and have a good understanding

(5 of 8) [CW-11710/2021]

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

(6 of 8) [CW-11710/2021]

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 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 raised was that the candidate had done post graduation in English though had done his graduation in

(7 of 8) [CW-11710/2021]

Science and as it was found that the subject compulsory English was studied by the petitioner in that particular case for only one year, it was found that the judgment in the case of Deepak Bariya in DBSAW No.598/2018, decided on 07.03.2018 also did not help the cause of the petitioner therein.

In view of the above discussion, as the plea raised and determination made by the respondents is contrary to the Division Bench judgment in the case of Gaya Shri (supra), the order impugned passed during the pendency of the present writ petition dated 30.11.2021 (Annex.-R/1) cannot be sustained, the same is, therefore, quashed and set-aside.

The writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The respondents are directed 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 marks than the petitioner were provided appointment, in case she is otherwise eligible. However, the petitioner would be entitled to monitory benefits from her date of appointment.

Needful may be done by the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of this order."

In view of the above, the rejection of petitioner's candidature

on the ground that he had not studied subject Physics/Chemistry

in all the six semesters, cannot be countenanced.

So far as the delay in filing the petition is concerned, a bare

look at the order dated 28.02.2019 (Annex.17) produced by the

petitioner indicates that only 'Rejected' word has been indicated

against the name of the petitioner.

The submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent

that the said circumstance existed even at the time of filing of the

petition though is true, however, as it has been found that the

rejection of the petitioner's candidature is not justified and as it