Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Priyanka Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 December, 2023

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2023:RJ-JD:41489]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                   S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3946/2019

1.       Yogesh Sharma S/o Shri Shrigopal Sharma, Aged About
         34 Years, By Caste Sharma, Resident Of Sevgon Ka
         Mohalla, Near Satsang Bhawan, Ward No. 22, Merta City,
         District Nagaur.
2.       Priyanka Sharma D/o Shri Laxmi Narayan Sharma, Wife
         Of Shri Yogesh Sharma,, Aged About 27 Years, Resident
         Of Sevgon Ka Mohalla, Near Satsang Bhawan, Ward No.
         22 Merta City, District Nagaur.
                                                                     ----Petitioners
                                      Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Education
         Department,       Government            Of     Rajasthan,     Secretariat,
         Jaipur.
2.       The       Director/commissioner              (Elementary      Education),
         Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3.       The District Education Officer (Elementary Education),
         Nagaur.
4.       The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur.
                                                                   ----Respondents
                                Connected With
                   S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4609/2019
Priyanka Sharma D/o Shri Laxmi Narayan Sharma, Aged About
27 Years, W/o Shri Yogesh Sharma, By Caste Sharma, Resident
Of Sevgon Ka Mohalla, Near Satsang, Bhawan, Ward No. -22,
Merta City, District- Nagaur.
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Education
         Department,       Government            Of     Rajasthan,     Secretariat,
         Jaipur.
2.       The       Director/commissioner,             (Elementary       Education)
         Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3.       The District Education Officer (Elementary Education),
         Nagaur.
4.       The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur.


                       (Downloaded on 11/12/2023 at 08:34:19 PM)
 [2023:RJ-JD:41489]                        (2 of 11)                           [CW-3946/2019]


                                                                       ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)                :    Mr. K.R. Saharan.
For Respondent(s)                :    Mr. K.K.Bissa, AGC.



       HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

Reserved on 01/12/2023 Pronounced on 05/12/2023

1. Since both the instant petitions involve a common

controversy though with marginal variation in the contextual facts,

therefore, for the purposes of the present analogous adjudication,

the facts are being taken from the above-numbered S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.3946/2019, while treating the same as a lead case.

1.1. The prayer clauses of the instant petitions read as under:

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3946/2019:

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Writ petition may kindly be allowed and:-

(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 28.02.2019 (Annexure-11), issued by the respondent No.-2 may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed & set aside qua the cancellation of petitioners' candidature/selection on the post of Teacher Grade-III, Level-II, in English Subject in pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.07.2018 (Annexure-4).

(ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned selection list dated 28.02.2019 (Annexure-12), issued by the respondent No.-2 may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed & set aside.

(iii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to issue petitioners' appointment/posting orders on the post of Teacher Grade-

III, Level-II, in English Subject in pursuant to the

[2023:RJ-JD:41489] (3 of 11) [CW-3946/2019]

advertisement dated 31.07.2018 (Annexure-4) and petitioners may be allowed to join on the post of Teacher Grade-III, Level-II, in English Subject with all consequential benefits.

(iv) Any other appropriate order or direction as may be deemed just and proper by the Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.

(v) Costs of this writ petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioners."

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4609/2019:

"It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Writ petition may kindly be allowed and:-

(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to issue petitioners' appointment/posting orders on the post of Teacher Grade-

III, Level-II in English Subject in pursuant to the advertisement dated 11.09.2017 (Annexure-2) and order dated 22.08.2018 (Annexure-9) and petitioners may be allowed to join on the post of Teacher Grade-III, Level-II, in English Subject with all consequential benefits.

(ii) Any other appropriate order or direction as may be deemed just and proper by the Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

(iii) Costs of this writ petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner.

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned

counsel of the petitioners, are that the petitioners, in addition to

their other academic qualifications, have acquired Graduation

Degree i.e B.A. in English Subject from Om Prakash Joginder

Singh (OPJS), University, Churu in the academic year 2014-15.

The respondents issued an advertisement no.01/2018 dated

[2023:RJ-JD:41489] (4 of 11) [CW-3946/2019]

31.07.2018 for recruitment on the post of Teacher Grade-III,

Level-II in English subject.

2.1. The petitioners applied for the aforesaid post and after the

examination for the same were conducted, the petitioners

obtained the marks within the cut off criteria, and therefore, the

respondents vide order dated 03.09.2018 declared the cut off

marks for the purpose of documents verification for appointment

on the post in question.

2.2. Thereafter, the respondent no.2 vide order dated 26.09.2018

issued directions to all Chief Executive Officers of respective Zila

Parishads to verify the documents pertaining to qualifications of

the concerned candidates. The respondent no.2 vide impugned

order dated 28.02.2019 has however, cancelled the

candidature/selection of the petitioners for the post in question on

the ground that the petitioners did not join the post in question.

2.3. After the rejection of the petitioners' selection, the

respondents provisionally selected the candidates from waiting list

and also came out with the tentative dates for

appointment/posting orders on 05.03.2019.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

impugned order stated that the petitioners did not join the post in

question, and due to which the candidature/selection of the

petitioners was being cancelled, thus, the said ground for

cancellation is highly illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of

the Constitution of India.

3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner no.2

earlier participated in the Rajasthan Primary School Teacher Direct

[2023:RJ-JD:41489] (5 of 11) [CW-3946/2019]

Recruitment Competitive Examination, 2016 wherein the same

qualification in question from the OPJS University was acquired

and verified. Therefore, the respondents itself verified the

qualification of the petitioners in the year 2016, and now at the

time of the recruitment process in question, they have taken the

impugned action which is highly illegal.

3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that other similarly situated

candidates, who have obtained the graduation qualification of B.A.

(Additional) in English subject from OPJS University, Churu in the

year 2014 have already been given appointment on the post in

question pursuant to the recruitment process of the year 2016.

Therefore, as per learned counsel, the impugned action of the

respondents being arbitrary is not justified in law.

3.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the OPJS University

is a private university and it was included in the list of the

recognized Universities by the University Grant Commission (UGC)

published on 03.12.2013, and therefore, the graduation degree in

question acquired by the petitioners is valid as it was acquired

from a recognized University, and thus, there is no requirement of

any approval from the National Council for Teacher Education

(NCTE).

4. On the other hand, Mr. K.K. Bissa, learned Additional

Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents,

while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the

petitioners, submitted that the candidature of the petitioners was

cancelled on the ground that they acquired B.A. (Additional)

English from OPJS, University during academic session 2014-15

[2023:RJ-JD:41489] (6 of 11) [CW-3946/2019]

i.e. prior to the year 2016-17, whereas the OPJS University was

granted recognition by the NCTE only in the academic session

2016-17. Therefore, as per learned Additional Government

Counsel, the petitioners do not have the required qualification in

question from a recognized University.

4.1. It was further submitted that the petitioners are not holding

the relevant qualification for appointment on post in question, and

therefore, the rejection of the petitioners selection does not suffer

from arbitrariness on the part of the respondents.

4.2. It was also submitted that in the 250 th Meeting of the

Northern Regional Committed (NRC), National Council for Teachers

Education held from 19th February to 3rd March, 2016, permission

was granted to the OPJS University for conducting the course in

question only from the academic session 2016-17.

4.3. It was further submitted that similar controversy had already

been decided by a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case

of Hitesh & Ors Vs. National Council for Teacher Education

& Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13046/2018, decided on

04.07.2019) wherein it was held that unless the course is

recognized by the NCTE, the said degree after completion of the

said course would be of no significance.

4.4. It was also submitted that rejection of the petitioners'

candidature is thus justified, as the same was done strictly in

accordance with law.

5. In his rejoinder arguments, learned counsel for the

petitioners submitted that the judgment rendered in the case of

Hitesh & Ors. (Supra) is not applicable in the present case

[2023:RJ-JD:41489] (7 of 11) [CW-3946/2019]

because the said case was related to validity of para 2 of the NCTE

minimum qualification notification, which stipulated that the

Teachers for the purpose of appointment in school under the Right

to Education Act, 2009 should possess a diploma or degree in the

Course in Teachers Education recognized by the NCTE.

5.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned order

has been passed by the respondents without giving any

opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, which is clearly a

violation of the principles of natural justice.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the

record of the case alongwith judgment cited at the Bar.

7. This Court observes that the petitioners are possessing

graduation degree i.e B.A. (Additional) in English subject acquired

from the OPJS University in the academic year 2014-15. The

respondents issued the advertisement for the post in question,

pursuant whereto the petitioners submitted their application. After

the examination for the said post, the respondents issued the list

of cut off marks, and as per the petitioners, they have obtained

the marks within the cut off criteria. Thereafter, the respondents

called the petitioners for documents verification process.

Subsequently however, the respondent no.2 vide impugned order

dated 28.02.2019 has cancelled the candidature/selection of the

petitioners on the post in question on the ground that the

petitioners did not join the post in question.

8. This Court further observes that the petitioners have

acquired the qualification of B.A. (Additional) English Subject from

the OPJS, University in the year 2014-15, but at that time the said

[2023:RJ-JD:41489] (8 of 11) [CW-3946/2019]

University was not recognized by the NCTE; the necessary

recognition to the said University for conducting the Course in

question was granted only from the academic session 2016-17

onwards.

8.1. This Court also observes that the OPJS University has

awarded the degree in question to the petitioners without any

recognition from the NCTE. As per the petitioners, the requisite

recognition was granted from the academic session 2015/16 as

reflected in the writ petition, whereas the Minutes of the

aforementioned 250th Meeting of the NRC, NCTE as held reflects

that such recognition was granted from the academic session

2016-17 to the OPJS University for conducting the course in

question.

Relevant portion of the said Minutes of Meeting is reproduced

as hereunder:-

"The 250th of the Northern Regional Committee (NRC), National Council for Teacher Education was held from 19 th February to 3rd March, 2016 (Part-13) 03.03.2016 at NRC, NCTE, Jaipur.

..... ....

The minutes of 250th meeting were confirmed with the following modifications:

316. OPJS University, Plot BA, The original file of the No.39, Khasra, B.Ed., Institution alongwith other Street No.39, Village- B.Sc. related documents NCTE Act, rawatsar Kunjala, B.Ed. 1993, Regulations and Post Office-Sankhu, Guidelines of NCTE published Tehsil/Taluka- from time to time were Rajgarh, District carefully considered by NRC Churu, Satate- and following observations Rajasthan, Pin Code- were made.

331303 The Committee decided that recognition be granted to the

[2023:RJ-JD:41489] (9 of 11) [CW-3946/2019]

institution for BA. B.Ed./B.Sc.

B.Ed. Course for two units (100 students) under clause 7(16) of the NCTE Regulations, 2014 from the academic session 2016-17.

The formal order of recognition under clause 7(16) of the NCTE Regulations, 2014 will be issued only after the outcome of SLP filed by the NCTE before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

9. At this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce

the relevant portion of the judgment rendered in the case of

Hitesh & Ors (Supra), as hereunder:-

"4. It is evident that a diploma or degree in a course of teacher education is deemed to be one, for the purposes of recruitment of a teacher under the Right to Education Act only if it is recognised by the NCTE. The NCTE was set up pursuant to the NCTE Act, 1993. The primacy of this institution or body as the regulator of teacher education has been recognised time and again by the Supreme court in several judgments including Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Maha Vidhalaya Vs. State of UP 2013 (2) SCC 617; Chairman Bharatia Education Society Vs. State of A.P. 2011 (4) SCC 527.

5. In these circumstances, the stipulation that course in B.Ed. for teacher education, recognised by the NCTE is essential cannot be turned arbitrary.

6. So far as the submission that the petitioners or other candidates who hold B.Ed. or other degree or diploma qualification issued by universities entitled to issue such degree is concerned, the Court sees no difficulty. The university - as OPJS University, Churu in the present case may be entitled to conduct courses in various subjects- Science, Engineering, Management etc. If any of these course is deemed a technical or professional one requiring the regulation by specialized body - mostly statutory such as Bar Council of India; AICTE; Medical

[2023:RJ-JD:41489] (10 of 11) [CW-3946/2019]

Council of India, Dental Council of India etc., the fact that the concerned professional or other course (NCTE approved B.Ed. Course), is for some reason not recognised by the specialized special bodies would not in any way take away its basic character of a university degree. However, the objective of setting up a specialized regulatory body is to ensure that the concerned student or candidate possesses a qualification of the prescribed standard. In the case of teachers, unless the course is recognised by the NCTE the candidature of such students, who successfully complete the B.Ed. or other degree would be of little consequence and it cannot be used for the purposes of recruitment in this particular case, as teacher under the Right to Education Act.