Rajasthan High Court
Ashwani Lamba S/O Virendra Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 7 February, 2022
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1572/2022
1. Ashwani Lamba S/o Virendra Singh, Aged About 29 Years,
Resident Of 80, Gangotri Nagar, Triveni Puliya, Gopalpura
Bypass, Jaipur.
2. Arvind Kumar S/o Ramchandra Singh, Aged About 25
Years, Resident Of V.p.o Poshani Teh. Laxmangarh,
District Sikar.
3. Brijesh Kumar Gochar S/o Nemichand, Aged About 31
Years, Resident Of Village Jiyahedi Post Budhadeet Tehsil
Digod Kota.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Additional Chief
Secretary, Department Of Education, Secretariate, Jaipur.
2. The Joint Secretary, Department Of Personnel,
Secretariate, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Directorate Of Secondary Education,
Bikaner.
4. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur Through Its
Secretary, Rsmssb, Durgapura, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. I.J. Kathuria through VC
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Zakawat Ali, AGC through VC
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Judgment
07/02/2022
1. The petitioners have challenged the vires of Rajasthan
Educational (State and Subordinate) Service (Amendment) Rules,
2022. By these amendment rules the Rajasthan Educational (State
and Subordinate) Service Rules, 2021 (hereinafter to be referred
(2 of 6) [CW-1572/2022]
as 'the Rules of 2021') came to be amended. By virtue of this
amendment following entries were added in the Schedule-II to the
Rules of 2021:-
1. Senior 50% 50% Master in Engineering Basic Minimum Candidate
Computer (M.E.)/Master in Computer five years must have
Instructor Technology (M.Tech.) Instructor experience Post Graduate
in Computer Science on the post in the same
(CS)/ Information mentioned subject/one of
Technology (IT)/ in col.6 the subjects
Electronics & of his
Communications graduation
Engineering (ECE)/ degree.
Electrical Engineering
(EE)/Electrical &
Electronics Engineering
(EEE)/ Electronics &
Telecommunications
Engineering (ETE)/
Electronics &
Instrumentation
Engineering (EIE)
OR
M.Sc. in Computer
Science
(CS)/Information
Technology (IT)
OR
Master in Computer
Application (MCA)/'B'
Level/'C' Level
OR
Any equivalent or
higher qualification
recognised by the
Government.
2 Basic 100% - Graduate and 'A'
Computer Level/PGDCA
Instructor (Minimum one year)
Or
Bachelor in
Engineering (B.E.)/
Bachelor in Technology
(B.Tech) in Computer
Science (CS)/
Information
Technology (IT)/
Electronics &
Communications
Engineering (ECE)/
Electrical Engineering
(EE)/ Electrical and
Electronics Engineering
(EEE)/ Electronic
Instrumentation &
Control (EIC)/
Telecommunications &
Instrumentation (TIE)
OR
(3 of 6) [CW-1572/2022]
B.Sc. in Computer
Science (CS)/
Information
Technology (IT)
OR
Bachelor in Computer
Application (BCA) from
a University
established by the law
in India
OR
Any equivalent or
higher qualification
recognised by the
Government
2. By these amendments thus in the Schedule-II posts of Basic
Computer Instructor and Senior Computer Instructor were added.
The post of Basic Computer Instructor would be filled up 100% by
direct recruitment. Educational qualifications were prescribed as
provided in column-4. Another post was of Senior Computer
Instructor. This would be filled up 50% by promotion and 50% by
direct recruitment. Promotion would be from the post of Basic
Computer Instructor. Educational qualifications for direct
recruitment included masters degree in various subjects, such as
Engineering (M.E.), M. Tech in Computer Science, Information
Technology, Electrical Engineering etc.
3. The grievance of the petitioners is that these educational
qualifications prescribed in the rules do not categorise any of the
bachelors degree and insist only on the candidates having masters
degree in relevant subject. All the petitioners hold bachelors
degree in Information Technology or related fields. By virtue of
these rules thus they are not eligible for participating in the
recruitment process which has already begun. They have therefore
challenged the vires of the said rules in the present petition.
(4 of 6) [CW-1572/2022]
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew our attention to
several other cadres in the State as well as of the teachers in
Kendriya Vidyalayas where for similar teaching assigns educational
qualifications for eligibility include bachelors degree. Learned
counsel for the petitioners therefore submitted that the impugned
rules be set aside and the bachelors degrees in the relevant field
for the post of Senior Computer Instructor be included.
5. In our opinion petitioners have not made out any case for
interference. What should be the eligibility criteria for selection on
the posts is essentially to be decided by the rule making authority.
Unless and until rules are shown to be arbitrary, unreasonable,
suffering any legal or factual malafide, the Court would not
substitute its wisdom for that of the rule making authority
particularly in educational and technical fields. The State
Government in exercise of its rule making powers have framed the
rules in question. It is in the wisdom of the concerned authority to
provide for minimum qualification of masters degree in the
relevant field as necessary for holding the post of Senior
Computer Instructor. The Court would not interfere with the
wisdom of the rule making authority lightly.
6. Learned counsel for the Government drew our attention to
an order dated 24.01.2022 passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.1104/2022-Satya Narayan Saini and Ors. Vs. State of
Rajasthan and Ors. in which challenge to the eligibility criteria
for the post of Basic Computer Instructor came to be rejected.
Following observations may be noted.
"The short contention of the petitioners is that
exclusion of three years diploma in computer science
from the list of eligibility criteria contained in the said
Rules for the post in question is arbitrary and
(5 of 6) [CW-1572/2022]
discriminatory. This ground the petitioners seek to
make good by pointing out that for the post of
computer programming assistant, the State recognizes
the said qualification as essential eligibility. According
to the petitioners nature of duties and responsibilities
in both cases being identical, exclusion of this
qualification for the purpose of recruitment to the post
of basic computer instructor amounts to
discrimination.
We do not find that the petitioners have made out any
case for interference. What should be the eligibility
criteria for holding a particular post in public
employment has essentially to be left to the discretion
of the authorities. The Court would not substitute its
opinion for that of recruiting authority in such
specialized fields. By mere statement that the two
posts namely, basic computer instructor and computer
programming assistant involve identical nature of
duties, responsibilities and workload, these facts do
not get established. Admittedly two posts are in
different cadres and carry different nomenclature.
Unless and until full duty lists, the nature of job to be
performed and all other relevant aspects are brought
on record, the two posts cannot be held to be
equivalent in all respects.
In the result the petition is dismissed."
7. The instances of the other posts under the State Government
cited by the counsel for the petitioners relate to different posts. In
absence of similarity in nature of posts, the educational
qualifications prescribed in other set of posts cannot be
interpolated in the present case. Example of the instructors in
Kendriya Vidyalayas also would not make a case of hostile
discrimination. The recruiting agencies in both cases are different.
It was argued that NCTE does not insist on post graduation as
minimum eligibility criteria for the post in question. As is well
settled through series of judgments, it is always open for the
State Government to provide for higher or more stringent
qualifications from that of prescribed by the NCTE. Reference in
this respect can be made to a Constitution Bench judgment of the
(6 of 6) [CW-1572/2022]
Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Preeti Srivastava and Anr.
Vs. State of M.P. and Ors., reported in (1999) 7 SCC 120.
8. In the result, the petition is dismissed.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ
KAMLESH KUMAR/65
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
