Rajasthan High Court
Mool Chand And Ors vs State Education Departmentors on 22 July, 2022
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7377/2014
1. Moolchand S/o Govind Ram B/c Obc, Vandp Thikariya Vai
Bawari, Teh. Khandella, Distt. Sikar.
2. Hukama Ram S/o Sh. Bajrang Lal B/c Yadav Obc, Vill.
Krishna Nagar Post Kolira, Teh. And Distt. Sikar.
3. Hawa Singh Jat S/o Sukhi Ram Jat B/c Jat Obc,
Vandpandteh. Kotkasim, Distt. Alwar.
4. Rakesh Kumar S/o Rameshwar Lal B/c Jat Obc, Ward
No.18, Choudhary Colony, Chirawa, Distt. Jhunjhunu.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Education
Department, Secretariat Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
4. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission Through Its
Secretary, Jaipur Road, Ajmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tarun Choudhary.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.L. Saini, AAG.
Mr. Ashish K. Saksena for RPSC.
Mr. S. Zakawat Ali
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
22/07/2022
1. Application for early listing is allowed.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the
following prayer:-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that
your lordship may graciously be pleased to
accept and allow this writ petition and by an
appropriate writ of mandamus order or
direction in nature thereof:
(2 of 4) [CW-7377/2014]
I) the respondent may kindly be directed to
allow appointment to the petitioners on the
post of P.T.I. grade II & III pursuant to
advertisement dated 14.12.2011 against the
post reserved for ex-army personnel / ex-
servicemen by treating the qualification
/service trade of the petitioner i.e. certificate
of C.P.ED (AIBC) as valid and recognized for
the purpose of appointment on the post of
P.T.I. grade II & III as per letter dated
31.10.2013 issued by the office of respondent
No. 1 itself with all consequential benefits.
ii) Any other order which this Hon'ble Court
may deems fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case also be passed in
favour of humble petitioner along with cost of
writ."
3. Brief facts of the case are that in pursuance to the
advertisement dated 14.12.2011 issued by the respondents, the
petitioners applied for the post Teacher Grade-II & III and the
respondents did not consider their educational qualification
equivalent with the qualification mentioned in the advertisement
for the post in question.
4. The required educational qualification which has been
mentioned in the said advertisement reads as under:-
"7(1) Bachelor of Physical Education
(B.P.Ed.) recognized by the National
Council for Teacher Education."
5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that
the petitioners are ex-service men and having qualification of PT
Assistant Instructor Basic Course from Army School of Physical
Training which is equivalent to Education (B.P.E.D.). Counsel
further submits that the petitioners are having the qualification
which is required for appointment on the post of in question.
6. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted
that the candidature of the petitioners has rightly been rejected by
(3 of 4) [CW-7377/2014]
the respondents as the petitioners were not having the required
education qualification of Teacher Education as recognized by the
NCTE. Counsel further submits that the Diploma of the petitioners
(PT Assistant Instructor Basic Course) is not recognized by the
NCTE.
7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Uttar
Pradesh Vs. Vijay Kumar Mishra reported in (2017) 11 SCC
521, in para No. 8 has held as under:-
"8. The position is fairly well settled that
when a set of eligibility qualifications are
prescribed under the rules and an applicant
who does not possess the prescribed
qualification for the post at the time of
submission of application or by the cut off
date, if any, described under the rules or
stated in the advertisement, is not eligible
to be considered for such post. It is
relevant to note here that in the rules or in
the advertisement no power was vested in
any authority to make any relaxation
relating to the prescribed qualifications for
the post. Therefore, the case of a
candidate who did not come within the
zone of consideration for the post could not
be compared with a candidate who possess
the prescribed qualifications and was
considered and appointed to the post.
Therefore, the so-called confession made
by the officer in the Court that persons
haying lower merit than the respondent
have been appointed as SDI (Basic),
having been based on misconception is
wholly irrelevant. The learned single Judge
clearly erred in relying on such a statement
for issuing the direction for appointment of
the respondent. The Division Bench was
equally in error in confirming the judgment
of the learned single Judge. Thus the
judgment of the learned single Judge as
confirmed by the Division Bench is
unsustainable and has to be set aside."
(4 of 4) [CW-7377/2014]
9. This writ petition filed by the petitioners deserves to be
dismissed on the ground that the petitioners are not having the
required education qualification as mentioned in the advertisement
because the Diploma of the petitioners is not recognized by the
NCTE, therefore, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of State of Uttar Pradesh (supra), in
my considered view, no case is made out for interference by this
court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
10. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
MG/61
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
