Bhavna Kumari Katara vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 13416 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10320/2018

Bhavna Kumari Katara D/o Shri Ganesh Lal Katara, Age 27 Years, Village Ganoda, District Banswara (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director, Department Of Elementary Education Bikaner (Raj.)

2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Banswara (Raj.)

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.R. Mehta, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

Order

16/11/2022

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for

seeking a direction to consider her case for appointment on the

post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-I) in category of ST TSP

candidate on the basis of her merit.

The brief facts in nutshell, are that an advertisement was

issued on 12.04.2018, whereby selection process was undertaken

by the respondent-Zila Parishad, Banswara and since the

petitioner had acquired a total 56.00% of marks in REET, 2015

Examination as such, the petitioner applied in pursuance of the

advertisement issued by the respondents.

The petitioner has pleaded that she secured overall merit

No.2688 and cut off marks for this category was 36.00% and as

such, the petitioner was entitled to be appointed.

(2 of 5) [CW-10320/2018]

The petitioner has pleaded that while calling candidates for

verification of the documents, her name was placed at merit

No.2688 and petitioner had got her documents verified for the

purpose of appointment.

The petitioner has pleaded in her petition that the

respondents issued notifications dated 17.06.2011 and dated

16.09.2013 in pursuance of direction issued by this Court in S.B.

Civil Writ Petition No.3964/2011 and the eligibility was prescribed

of the candidates, who had passed their REET Examination on

different dates.

The petitioner has pleaded that she had taken admission

after allotment of BSTC College to her on 17.08.2009 and she

deposited the requisite fee on 26.08.2009.

The petitioner has pleaded that in spite of securing cut off

marks and having higher merit, she was not considered suitable

for appointment for the reason that the petitioner was having less

than 45% marks in the Senior Secondary (10+2) Examination.

The petitioner has pleaded that the date of taking admission

in the BSTC Course was prior to 01.09.2009 and as per the

notification issued by the respondent-State dated 12.04.2018, her

case was required to be considered for the purpose of

appointment.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, while making submissions

has referred to Clause No.9.5 of the notification dated 12.04.2018

and submitted that since the petitioner had taken admission in

BSTC Course prior to 01.09.2009, as such, all those candidates

who had taken the admission in BSTC Course from 27.09.2007 to

31.08.2009, were eligible for appointment and as such, the

requirement of 45% marks was not to be insisted upon as the

(3 of 5) [CW-10320/2018]

petitioner belonged to the Scheduled Tribe Category and as such,

by giving relaxation of 5% marks, she secured more than 40%

marks and as such, she could not have been denied her

appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also filed an additional

affidavit and has placed on record the certificate dated 14.09.2022

issued by Shree Marudhar Kesari Balika Sanskrit Shikshak

Prashikshan Vidhyalaya, wherein, it is certified that the petitioner

had deposited the fees by way of demand draft dated 26.08.2009

and as such, she had got the admission prior to 31.08.2009.

Learned Additional Advocate General-Mr. Pankaj Sharma

appearing for the State, submitted that the documents which have

been filed by the petitioner clearly show that the petitioner had

got admission on 01.09.2009, and as such, he refers to a

document Annexure R/1, whereby Online Application Form was

filled by the petitioner, which reflects date of appointment of the

petitioner as 01.09.2009.

Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that

subsequently obtaining of certificate by the petitioner from the

College, is of no consequence.

Learned Additional Advocate General very fairly submitted

that the controversy with regard to the eligibility of the candidates

of passing their BSTC Course in several round of counselling, has

been dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Special

Appeal (Writ) No.224/2019 (Rakesh Gaur Vs. The State of

Rajasthan & Ors.).

Learned Additional Advocate General very fairly submitted

that the Division Bench of this Court has considered the decision

(4 of 5) [CW-10320/2018]

rendered in D.B. Civil Special Appeal Writ No.545/2020 (State of

Rajasthan & Ors. VS. Ankul Singhal).

Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the case

of the petitioner may be decided by this Court in view of the law

laid down by the Division Bench of this Court.

This Court finds that the petitioner admittedly deposited her

fee on 26.08.2009, however, the date of admission which is given

as 01.09.2009 in the Application Form submitted by the petitioner,

is of little consequence.

This Court finds that the Division Bench of this Court in the

case of Rakesh Gaur Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra) has

taken into account various rounds of counselling, which were

conducted while granting admission and if any candidate was

granted admission in subsequent counselling, the Court has taken

a view that the admission will relate back to the first counselling

and all those candidates who have got admission by way of

different counselling will be treated to have got admission in the

year 2009 between the period 27.09.2007 to 31.08.2009.

This Court in view of judgment passed by the Division Bench

of this Court in the cases of Rakesh Gaur Vs. State of Rajasthan &

Ors. (supra) and State of Rajasthan Vs. Ankul Singhal (supra),

deems it proper to treat the petitioner eligible for appointment as

she has got the admission in BSTC Course prior to 01.09.2009.

This Court accordingly allows the present writ petition and

directs the respondents to consider the petitioner for appointment

on the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-I), if she fulfills the other

eligible criteria.

The petitioner would be considered for appointment on the

basis of her merit and she will be placed above the candidate who

(5 of 5) [CW-10320/2018]

was less meritorious than the petitioner and all the notional

benefits may be given to the petitioner except the actual benefits.

The compliance of the order may be made within a period of

five weeks after receipt of certified copy of this order.

The writ petition stands allowed accordingly.

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J Ramesh Vaishnav/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)