Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

State Of Rajasthan vs Vahidulla on 21 January, 2022

Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Vinod Kumar Bharwani

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
              D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 625/2019

Hamir Khan S/o Samay Khan, aged about 33 years, R/o Village
Dharash Nagar, Post Odhaniya, Tehsil Pokaran, District Jaisalmer.

                                                                  ----Appellant
                              Versus
1. Vahidulla S/o Shri Ibrahim, aged about 33 years, R/o Village &
Post Gomat Pokran, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

2. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of
Rural & Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.

3. The Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

4. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District-Bikaner,
Rajasthan.

5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jaisalmer, District
Jaisalmer.

6. The District Establishment Committee, Jaisalmer, District-
Jaisalmer.
                                            ----Respondents
                        Connected with
            D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.1410/2018
1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of
Rural & Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.

2. The Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District- Bikaner,
Rajasthan.

4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jaisalmer, District
Jaisalmer.

5.The District Establishment Committee, Jaisalmer, District-
Jaisalmer.
                                               -----Appellants
                            Versus
Vahidulla S/o Shri Ibrahim, R/o Village & Post Gomat Pokran,
Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
                                                               -----Respondent




                   (Downloaded on 21/01/2022 at 09:08:29 PM)
                                           (2 of 7)                 [SAW-625/2019]




For Appellant(s)          :     Mr. Khet Singh through VC.
                                Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG through VC.
                                Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG through VC.
For Respondent(s)         :     -



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

                              JUDGMENT



Judgment pronounced on                   :::            22/01/2022
Judgment reserved on                     :::            19/01/2022



BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE MEHTA, J.)

1. Heard. Perused the impugned Judgment and the material

available on record.

2. These two appeals have been preferred by the appellants

Hamir Khan and the State of Rajasthan for assailing the order

dated 18.01.2018 passed by the learned Single Bench of this

Court whereby, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11886/2017 preferred

by the respondent-writ petitioner Vahidulla was accepted in the

following terms:

"6. In light of the afore-quoted judgment, the writ petition is allowed in the same terms and respondents are directed to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-II) Urdu OBC Male Category vide advertisement dated 11.08.2013, in case he has otherwise secured cut-off marks and is otherwise eligible as per the result declared by the Zila Parishad concerned."

(3 of 7) [SAW-625/2019]

3. The appellant Hamir Khan and the writ petitioner Vahidulla

both applied for the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-II) Subject

Urdu in Male category in pursuance of the recruitment

advertisement dated 11.08.2013 issued by the respondent

Panchayati Raj Department. The respondent-writ petitioner was

found to be ineligible for the post as he was not possessing 50%

marks in Graduation which was the minimum requirement for the

OBC category candidates. After declaring the private respondent

Vahidulla to be ineligible, the appellant Hamir Khan was offered

appointment against the post. However, as stated above, the

respondent-writ petitioner preferred the writ petition which has

been allowed as above. Hence, these special appeals.

4. Notices of both these appeals were issued to the private

respondent Vahidulla. However, no one has put in appearance on

his behalf despite service.

5. Shri Khet Singh, learned counsel representing the appellant

Hamir Khan, apprised the Court that respondent- writ petitioner

Shri Vahidulla has, in the intervening period, been selected on the

post of Teacher Grade II and that is why, he has chosen not to

defend these appeals.

6. Attention of the Court was drawn to the following conditions

of the recruitment notification which prescribe the qualifications:

"¼2½ f}rh; Lrj& d{kk VI-VII

¼d½ Lukrd vkSj izkjafHkd f"k{kk esa f}o'khZ; fMIyksek ¼pkgs ftl fdlh uke ls tkuk tkrk gks½ vFkok

(4 of 7) [SAW-625/2019]

U;wure 50 izfr"kr vadks ds lkFk Lukrd ,oa f"k{kk "kkL= esa ,do'khZ; Lukrd ¼ch-,M-½ vFkok U;wure 45 izfr"kr vadks ds lkFk Lukrd ,oa f"k{kk "kkL= esa ,d o'khZ; Lukrd ¼ch-,M½ tks bl laca/k esa le; le; ij tkjh fd;s x;s jk'Vªh; v/;kid f"k{kk ifj'kn~ ¼ekU;rk] ekun.M vkSj fØ;kfof/k½ fofu;eksa ds vuqlkj izkIr fd;k x;k gks vFkok U;wure 50 izfr"kr vadks ds lkFk mPprj ek/;fed ¼vFkok blds led{k½ ,oa 4 o'khZ; izkjfEHkd f"k{kk "kkL= esa Lukrd (B.El.Ed.) vFkok U;wure 50 izfr"kr vadks ds lkFk mPprj ek/;fed ¼vFkok blds led{k½ ,oa 4 o'khZ; ch-,[email protected],l-lh ,M- ;k ch-,-,[email protected],llh-,M-

vkSj ¼[k½ jk'Vªh; v/;kid f"k{kk ifj'kn~ }kjk bl iz;kstu ds fy;s tkjh fd;s x;s ekxZn"khZ fl)kUrksa ds vuqlkj jktLFkku ljdkj }kjk vk;ksftr jktLFkku v/;kid ik=rk ijh{kk ¼vkj-Vh-bZ-Vh½ esa mRrh.kZA

¼3½ dsoy jk'Vªh; v/;kid f"k{kk ifj'kn~ ¼jkvf"ki½ }kjk ekU;rk &izkIr v/;kid f"k{kk "kkL= esa [email protected] ikB~;Øe ekU; gksxkA

¼4½ ¼d½ ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky;] tks/kiqj dh [k.MihB }kjk fofHkUu ;kfpdkvksa esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 20-5-2011 ds Øe esa Ldwy f"k{kk foHkkx] jktLFkku ds i=kad ,Q 7¼1½[email protected]@2011 fnukad 17 twu 2011 ds vuqlkj fuEu vH;FkhZ Hkh r`rh; Js.kh v/;kid lh/kh HkrhZ izfr;ksxh ijh{kk 2013 esa Hkkx ysus gsrq ik= gksaxs&

¼i½ ,sls lHkh vH;kFkhZ ftUgksaus jk'Vªh; v/;kid f"k{kk ifj'kn dh vf/klwpuk fnukad 27-9-07 tkjh gksus ls iwoZ f"k{kd izf"k{k.k ikB~;Øeksa esa izos"k fy;k gS] mUgsa Lukrd Lrj ;k led{k ijh{kk esa U;wure izfr"kr izkIr gksus dh ck/;rk ugha gSA

¼ii½ ,sls lHkh vH;kFkhZ ftUgksaus jk'Vªh; v/;kid f"k{kk ifj'kn dh vf/klwpuk fnukad 27-09-07 tkjh gksus ds ckn ijUrq vf/klwpuk fnukad 31-8-09 ds tkjh gksus ls iwoZ f"k{kd izf"k{k.k ikB~;Øeksa esa izos"k ys fy;k Fkk] mUgsa Lukrd Lrj ;k led{k ijh{kk esa U;wure 45 izfr"kr izkIr gksus dh ck/;rk gSA

¼iii½ ,sls lHkh vH;kFkhZ ftUgksua s jk'Vªh; v/;kid f"k{kk ifj'kn dh vf/klwpuk fnukad 31-8-09 ds tkjh gksus ds ckn f"k{kd izf"k{k.k ikB~;Øeksa esa izo"s k ys fy;k Fkk] mUgsa Lukrd Lrj ;k led{k ijh{kk esa U;wure 50 izfr"kr izkIr gksus dh ck/;rk gSA

¼[k½ jk'Vªh; v/;kid f"k{kk ifj'kn dh vf/klwpuk fnukad 27-11-2007 }kjk tkjh ekud ,oa ekun.Mksa ds }kjk izkFkfed fo|ky; v/;kid ¼d{kk 1 ls 5½ ds inksa ij U;wure 50 izfr"kr vadksa ds lkFk mPprj ek/;fed ¼vFkok blds led{k½ ,oa fnukad 27-11-2007 ls iwoZ U;wure 45 izfr"kr vadksa ds lkFk mPprj ek/;fed ¼vFkok blds led{k½ "kSf{kd vgZrk fu/kkZfjr gSA"

(Emphasis Supplied)

(5 of 7) [SAW-625/2019]

7. It was submitted that as per Clause 7(4)(Ka)(iii) of the

recruitment notification, the applicants who had taken admission

in the Teacher Training Courses after 31.08.2009, were required to

have minimum of 50% marks in the Graduation or equivalent

examination. The respondent Vahidulla, who completed his

Training Course in the year 2012, was admittedly having 44.17

marks in his Graduation and as such, he was not entitled to be

considered for appointment on the post. He urged that the learned

Single Judge of this Court, while deciding he matter, omitted to

consider the mandatory condition No.7(4)(Ka)(iii) of the

recruitment notification and as such, the impugned Judgment is

unsustainable in the eyes of law.

8. Learned AAG Shri Manish Vyas also supported the

contentions of Shri Khet Singh and urged that the impugned

Judgment suffers from non-consideration of the mandatory

condition No.7(4)(Ka)(iii) of the recruitment advertisement

(supra) and hence, the same deserves to be quashed. It was

further submitted that even if, 5% relaxation is provided to Shri

Vahidulla, he would still fall below mandatory requirement of 50%

marks in Graduation and hence, he was not entitled to be

appointed on the post of Teacher Grade III (Level-II) Subject

Urdu.

9. Having considered the submissions advanced at bar and,

after going through the conditions of the recruitment notification,

referred to supra, it is clear that those candidates who had taken

admission in Teacher Training Courses after 31.08.2009, were

required to possess minimum of 50% in the Graduation degree or

(6 of 7) [SAW-625/2019]

equivalent for being considered eligible against the post so

advertised. The view taken by the learned Single Judge that the

writ petitioner Vahidulla was entitled to relaxation of 5% marks in

tandem with the candidates of Scheduled Caste category, is

absolutely unsustainable in view of the mandatory language of the

recruitment notification.

10. The controversy at hand is squarely covered by the

Judgment dated 06.05.2019 rendered by Division Bench of this

Court in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.514/2019 (Anil

Kumar Trivedi vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) wherein, it was

held as below:

"6. This Court is of the opinion that the reasons which persuaded the learned Single Judge to reject the writ petition are sound. Clearly, the eligibility indicated that those who secured admission after 31.08.2009 had to necessarily possess 50% marks. The appellant secured admission only in November, 2009. in the light of the clear stipulation, no other conclusion other than that taken by the learned Single Judge could have been arrived at.