Bhawani Shankar S/O Sh. Harlal ... vs The State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 1113 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

            S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13871/2018

1.    Rajendra Kahar S/o Ram Lal Kahar, Aged About 21 Years,
      R/o Village Seesola, Tehsil Nainwa, District Bundi (Raj.)
2.    Bhavna Sharma S/o Krishna Datt Sharma, Aged About 21
      Years, R/o Village Sirsai, Post Raysis, Tehsil Nadbai,
      District Bharatpur (Raj.)
3.    Yogita Jain D/o Narendra Kumar Jain, W/o Yogesh Kumar
      Jain, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Teachers Colony, Near
      Gadasiya Lg Showroom, Nadbai, District Bharatpur.
4.    Jagan Singh S/o Omveer Singh, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
      Village Karai, Post Mairatha, Tehsil Roopwas, District
      Bharatpur (Raj.)
5.    Sumer Singh S/o Sohan Singh, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
      Village    Sanai,    Post     Subhdand,           Tehsil   Luni,   District
      Jodhpur.
6.    Rinky Kumari Bhardwaj D/o Vijay Singh Rajput, Aged
      About 27 Years, R/o Village Post Udai Kalana, Tehsil
      Gangapurcity, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
7.    Alka Sharma D/o Prem Chand Sharma, W/o Vidhdhar
      Ojha, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Ward No.7, 8 Shpd,
      Suratgarh, District Sriganganangar (Raj.)
8.    Vinod Kumar S/o Sudama Sharma, Aged About 31 Years,
      R/o Sirsai, Raysis, Tehsil Nadbai, District Bharatpur
9.    Vikas Kumar Sharma S/o Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Aged
      About 24 Years, R/o Vpo Norangsar, Tehsil Sujangarh,
      District Churu
10.   Chitra Singh S/o Ramniwas, Aged About 23 Years, R/o
      Village Delel Ka Pura, Post Jaitpur, Tehsil Rajakhera,
      District Dholpur (Raj.)
11.   Jaipal S/o Nami Chand, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village
      Didiya Khurd, Post Didiya Kalan Via Rol, Tehsil Jayal
      District Nagaur (Raj.)
12.   Praveen Kumar Sharma S/o Mahaveer Prasad Sharma,
      Aged About 21 Years, R/o Behind Society Bhawan, Nagaur
      Road, Phardod, Teh Jayal, District Nagaur (Raj.)
13.   Ramvaran Giri S/o Rajveer Giri, Aged About 22 Years, R/o
      Math Hingota, Post Khidora, Tehsil Baseri, District Dholpur


                   (Downloaded on 04/02/2023 at 11:54:53 PM)
                                       (2 of 18)               [CW-13871/2018]


14.   Ashok Kumar Saini S/o Girdhari Lal Saini, Aged About 24
      Years, R/o Dhani Ramsar, Post Kanwat, Tehsil Khandela,
      District Sikar (Raj.)
15.   Ganesh Kumar Dadhich S/o Ram Lal Dadhich, Aged About
      23 Years, R/o Ward No.16, Rajaldesar, District Churu
      (Raj.)
16.   Jeetendra Singh S/o Rohan Singh, Aged About 27 Years,
      R/o Village Ubar, Post Sogar, Tehsil Kumher, District
      Bharatpur (Raj.)
17.   Amer Deep Sharma S/o Devki Nandan Sharma, Aged
      About 31 Years, R/o Brahmpuri, Ward -1, Lakheri, District
      Bundi (Raj.)
18.   Ladu Ram S/o Ruganath Singh, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
      Village And Post Amli, Tehsil Chitalwana, District Jalore
      (Raj.)
19.   Hem Raj Saran S/o Beerama Ram Saran, Aged About 22
      Years, R/o Village Poberi Mand, Post Sarnawara, Tehsil
      Makrana, District Nagaur (Raj.)
20.   Jai Prakash Sharma S/o Nemi Chand, Aged About 29
      Years, R/o Village Bansi Kalan, Post Bansi Khurd, Tehsil
      Bharatpur, District Bharatpur (Raj.)
21.   Sonu Kanwar D/o Mahendra Singh Rajput, Aged About 29
      Years, R/o VP Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District
      Nagaur (Raj.)
22.   Nemi Chand Dadhich S/o Chotu Ram Dadhich, Aged
      About 23 Years, R/o Krishna Colony, Jaithran Chowki,
      Merta City, District Nagaur (Raj.)
23.   Hanumana Ram S/o Pema Ram, Aged About 28 Years,
      Village Khed, Post Tilwara, Tehsil Pachpadra, District
      Barmer (Raj.)
24.   Abhinay Jangid S/o Heera Lal, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
      Gangamandir Colony, Dholpur Road, Roopwas, District
      Bharatpur (Raj.)
25.   Sachin Gaur S/o Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Aged About 27
      Years, R/o Village Post Talab, Tehsil Rajgarh, District
      Alwar (Raj.)
26.   Shiv Pal S/o Ram Chandra Achra, Aged About 26 Years,
      R/o Village Gorisar, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu (Raj.)
27.   Ram Nivas S/o Kishana Ram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
      Udav Nagar, Padiyal, Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur

                  (Downloaded on 04/02/2023 at 11:54:53 PM)
                                         (3 of 18)               [CW-13871/2018]


28.   Bhupendra Singh S/o Snesh Kumar, Aged About 36 Years,
      R/o 3/81, NEB Housing Board, Behind Krishi Upaz Mandi,
      Alwar (Raj.)
29.   Shri Chand Vishnoi S/o Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 26
      Years, R/o Indo Ki Dhani 2, Bhikamkor, Tehsil Osian,
      District Jodhpur (Raj.)
30.   Shri Pal Jat S/o Ved Prakash Jat, Aged About 27 Years,
      R/o Anwar Nagar Urf Bhurwali, Post Loharwara, Tehsil
      Peeplu, District Tonk (Raj.)
31.   Raju Lal Choudhary S/o Ratan Lal Jat, Aged About 23
      Years, R/o Village Devri, Post Galod, Tehsil Peeplu, District
      Tonk (Raj.)
32.   Dwarka Jat D/o Mathura Lal Jat, W/o Vikas Choudhary,
      Aged About 26 Years, R/o Bamor, Tehsil And District Tonk
      (Raj.)
33.   Sanjay Kumar Jyani S/o Heera Lal Jyani, Aged About 23
      Years, R/o VPO-Pewa Tehsil Dhod District Sikar (Raj.)
34.   Dharmendra Singh S/o Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 24
      Years, R/o Near Bhuriya Bhata Talab Bartu, Post Bhim,
      District Rajsamand (Raj)
35.   Ramesh Kumar Saini S/o Ramdyal Saini, Aged About 24
      Years, R/o Dhani Mohanwali, Post Arnia, Tehsil Shri
      Madhpur, District Sikar (Raj.)
36.   Rakesh Kumar Bishnoi S/o Bhagwana Ram Bishnoi, Aged
      About 27 Years, R/o Poniyo Ki Dhani, Kalraba Bera, Tehsil
      Phalodi, District Jodhpur (Raj.)
37.   Vidhya Shankar Sisodiya S/o Gopal Lal Sisodiya, Aged
      About 43 Years, R/o Ward No.4, Mata Ji Ka Mandir, Post
      Siswali, Tehsil Mangrol, District Baran (Raj.)
38.   Madhuri Baishla D/o Ram Gopal Baishla, W/o Satyendra
      Singh, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Khanpur, Post
      Vishnoda, Tehsil Dholpur District Dholpur (Raj.)
39.   Geeta D/o Kashi Ram Solanki W/o Jaideep Gehlot, Aged
      About 38 Years, R/o Plot No.7, Marudhar Kesari Nagar,
      Shobhwato Ki Dhani, Pal Road, Jodhpur (Raj.)
40.   Inder Prakash Sharma S/o Ramswaroop Sharma, Aged
      About 30 Years, R/o Teachers Colony, Kumher Road,
      Katra, Nadbai, District Bharatpur (Raj.)




                    (Downloaded on 04/02/2023 at 11:54:53 PM)
                                         (4 of 18)                 [CW-13871/2018]


41.   Mamta Kumari S/o Mahendra Singh, Aged About 25
      Years, R/o Ward No.14, Post Chahuwali, Tehsil Tibbi,
      District Hanumangarh (Raj.)
42.   Rahul Nama S/o Prem Shankar, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
      Nama Tailors And Kashida Kendra, V And P Sultanpur
      Tehsil Digod, District Kota (Raj.)
43.   Manisha Yadav D/o Dashrath Singh Yadav, W/o Kishan
      Kumar, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Vpo Tasing, Tehsil
      Behror, District Alwar (Raj.)
44.   Ashok Kumar S/o Khamu Ram, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
      Hanuman Nagar, Bhojasar, Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur
      (Raj.)
45.   Ram Dev Chotiya S/o Narayan Ram Chotiya, Aged About
      25 Years, R/o Village Indas, Post Gogelav, Tehsil Nagaur,
      District Nagaur (Raj.)
46.   Ladu Lal Gadri S/o Mangi Lal Gadri, Aged About 21 Years,
      R/o Gadri Mohalla, Ullai, Tehsil Sahara, District Bhilwara
      (Raj.)
47.   Shailesh Vaishnav S/o Bachraj Vaishnav, Aged About 24
      Years, R/o 67, Near Water Tanker, Shastri Colony,
      Bijayanagar, District Ajmer (Raj.)
48.   Mahesh Chand Shandily S/o Ramesh Chand Sharma,
      Aged     About     24    Years,         R/o   Parashar      Colony,   Near
      Gudhniya School, Tehsil Mahwa, District Dausa(Raj.)
49.   Kartar Ghasal S/o Ramkaran Jat, Aged About 31 Years,
      R/o Village Phloda, Post Tiloniya, Tehsil Kishangarh,
      District Ajmer (Raj.)
50.   Dharamveer Mahla S/o Pyare Lal, Aged About 24 Years,
      R/o Village Narayan Ka Bas, Post Khuri Bari, Tehsil
      Laxmangarh, Sikar (Raj.)
51.   Madan Lal S/o Bhagwan Singh, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
      Village Pura Sikroda, Post Neemkhera, Tehsil Bari, District
      Dholpur (Raj.)
52.   Rahul Doi S/o Rakesh Kumar, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
      Village Alaniya, Post Cable Nagar, Tehsil Ladpura, District
      Kota (Raj.)
53.   Kailash Chand Meel S/o Likhama Ram Meel, Aged About
      33   Years,    R/o      Meelo      Ki    Dhani,      Post   Miran,    Tehsil
      Laxmangarh, District Sikar (Raj.)
54.   Amarnath Sharma S/o Mahesh Chand Sharma, Aged

                    (Downloaded on 04/02/2023 at 11:54:53 PM)
                                       (5 of 18)                  [CW-13871/2018]


      About 31 Years, R/o VPO Baman Baroda, Tehsil Gangapur
      City, District Sawaimadhopur (Raj.)
55.   Meenakshi D/o Vijay Singh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
      Village   Pahari,    Post      Pahari,       Tehsil     Pahari,   District
      Bharatpur (Raj.)
56.   Ranjeet Mali S/o Ram Swaroop Mali, Aged About 28
      Years, R/o Toda Gate, Baghera, Tehsil Kekri, District
      Ajmer (Raj.)
57.   Madhu Sudan Vaishnav S/o Bachhraj Vaishnav, Aged
      About 27 Years, R/o 67, Shastri Colony Near Water Tank,
      Bijya Nagar, District Ajmer (Raj.)
58.   Laxman Ram Dewasi S/o Mula Ram Dewasi, Aged About
      23 Years, R/o Village And Post Lunawas Kallan, Tehsil
      Luni, District Jodhpur (Raj.)
59.   Mahaveer Gurjar S/o Gangaram Gurjar, Aged About 25
      Years, R/o Dhani Thorali, Post Bithiloda, Tehsil Kotputli,
      District Jaipur (Raj.)
60.   Kavita Sahu D/o Shivdayal Sahu, W/o Raju Sahu, Aged
      About 34 Years, R/o Gour Mohalla, Garh Himmat Singh,
      Tehsil Mahwa, District Dausa (Raj.)
61.   Mahesh Chand S/o Krishna Chand, Aged About 29 Years,
      R/o Ganga Mandir Colony, Dholpur Road, Tehsil Roopwas,
      District Dholpur (Raj.)
62.   Nimba Ram Chotiya S/o Narayan Ram, Aged About 22
      Years, R/o Village Indas, Post Gogelav, Tehsil And District
      Nagaur (Raj.)
63.   Sushil Kumar Verma S/o Bhag Chand Verma, Aged About
      25 Years, R/o Vpo Suratpura, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa
      (Raj.)
64.   Amit Kumar Choudhary S/o Kailash Chand Choudhary,
      Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Mohabbatpur, Post
      Kalsara, Tehsil Malakhera, District Alwar (Raj.)
65.   Dipendra S/o Sita Ram Yadav, Aged About 22 Years, R/o
      Mangrawali Dhani, Dhodhasar, Via Govindgarh, Tehsil
      Chomu, District Jaipur (Raj.)
66.   Ashok Kumar S/o Arjun Ram, Aged About 21 Years, R/o
      Guhra, Tehsil Fatehgarh, District Jaisalmer (Raj.)
67.   Kunji Lal Regar S/o Dhanna Lal Regar, Aged About 27
      Years, R/o Village Goth, Post Morpa, Tehsil Bamanwas,
      District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)

                  (Downloaded on 04/02/2023 at 11:54:53 PM)
                                        (6 of 18)                    [CW-13871/2018]


68.   Maneesh Kumar S/o Chiman Singh, Aged About 27 Years,
      R/o Railway Station, Nana, Tehsil Bali, District Pali (Raj.)
69.   Anita Khatik D/o Ram Lal Khatik W/o Shivdayal Kirad,
      Aged About 36 Years, R/o 25/177, Ravindra Nath Tagore
      Nagar, Ambedkar Colony, District Dausa (Raj.)
70.   Umesh Parewa S/o Thakur Prasad, Aged About 28 Years,
      R/o Near Pwd Rest House, Phulera, District Jaipur (Raj.)
71.   Satish Kumar Bairwa S/o Kajod Mal Bairwa, Aged About
      25 Years, R/o Bairwa Ki Dhani, Toda, Thekla, District
      Dausa (Raj.)
72.   Manish Kumar Bairwa S/o Jalim Bairwa, Aged About 24
      Years, R/o Dhorala Post Peepalda, Tehsil Bonli, District
      Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
73.   Hemant Kumar Sharma S/o Supariya Sharma, Aged
      About 23 Years, R/o Village Khatauti, Post Khatauti, Tehsil
      Nadbai, District Bharatpur (Raj.)
74.   Durgavati Gurjar D/o Hanuman Gurjar, Aged About 23
      Years, R/o Vpo Lasadiya, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur
      (Raj.)
75.   Raman Lal S/o Keshav Dev, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
      Village Nagla Sitaram Ka, Post Daroda, Kathumar, District
      Alwar (Raj.)
                                                                ----Petitioners
                                  Versus
1.    The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary,
      Panchayati     Raj      Department,            Govt.     Of     Rajasthan,
      Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.    The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner
3.    The Board Of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer
      Through Its Secretary, Ajmer
4.    Surendra Singh Chaudhary S/o Roopa Ram, R/o Village
      Poberi, Via Gacchipura, Tehsil Makarana, District Nagaur
      (Raj.)-341504
5.    Kailash Chand S/o Lakhan Singh, R/o Dodi Ka Pura, Post
      Neemkhera, Tehsil Bari, District Dholpur (Raj.)-328027
6.    Ranjeet Poswal S/o Bhanwan Lal Poswal, R/o V And P
      Danta, Via Srinagar, District Ajmer (Raj.)-303025
7.    Rajesh Kumar Meena S/o Ramkhiladi Meena, Aged About
      28 Years, By Caste Meena (St), Village And Post Bhopur,

                   (Downloaded on 04/02/2023 at 11:54:53 PM)
                                         (7 of 18)                 [CW-13871/2018]


       Via Hindaun City, Tehsil Todabhim, District Karauli.
8.     Kaluram Meena S/o Shri Ratan Lal Meena, R/o Bapui,
       Tehsil Bonli, District Sawaimadhopur.
9.     Himmat Kumar Meena S/o Radheyshyam Meena, R/o
       Chandlai,    Post       Sukar,        Tehsil      Bamanwas,       District
       Sawaimadhopur.
10.    Surajeet Singh Meena S/o Shri Radheyshyam, R/o Village
       And Post Nahida, Tehsil Mahwa, District Dausa.
11.    Renu D/o Maan Singh, R/o Village Thonthwal, Post Palota,
       Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu.
                                                                ----Respondents

Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20404/2018 Bhawani Shankar S/o Sh. Harlal Singh, Aged About 33 Years, R/o VPO Kurli, Via Katrathal, Sikar, Rajasthan

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

2. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

3. Durga D/o Sh. Dhagal Singh W/o Sh. Laxman Singh, R/o Pradhan Ji Ki Gali, Jain Gurukul School, Ganeshpura, Beawar, District Ajmer, Rajasthan

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah, Adv.

For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. C. L. Saini, AAG
                               Mr. Tanveer Ahmed, Adv.
                               Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sogarwal, Adv.



             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

                                    Order

Reserved on            15/12/2022
Pronounced on          01/02/2023





                                           (8 of 18)               [CW-13871/2018]

1. As common issues are involved in both these writ

petitions, with the consent of the parties, both petitions were

heard together and are decided by way of this common order.

2. Succinctly stated, brief and relevant facts of the case

are as follows:

(i) Advertisement No. 01/2018 dated 12.04.2018 was issued by

the respondent-State for recruitment on the post of Teacher

Grade-III Level-I (in Non TSP area). 19819 posts were advertised

for Teacher Grade-III Level-I (General) and 678 posts were

advertised for Teacher Grade-III Level-I (Special Education).

(ii) The criteria of eligibility and selection was prescribed in the

advertisement. As per the criteria, the selection was based upon

highest marks secured by the candidate in any of the Rajasthan

Teachers Eligibility Test, i.e. REET 2015, 2017 or RTET 2011,

2012. The merit list was to be prepared State wise, wherein the

candidates would be allotted districts as per the preference

submitted by them in their application form.

(iii) The petitioners, being eligible candidates, applied for the

advertised posts.

(iv) The revised cut off marks were declared on 02.06.2018 and

revised district allotment list on 10.06.2018, in which the

petitioners could not find place in the merit list.

(v) The cause and controversy in the matter arose when the

petitioners discovered that about 3500 candidates, who were

already selected and working on the post of Teacher Grade-III

Level-I in pursuance to previous advertisements, had been

selected again in the recruitment process of 2018. Out of these

(9 of 18) [CW-13871/2018]

3500 candidates, 714 candidates were selected in the same

district in which they were already posted.

(vi) When the petitioners approached the respondent-State to

address this grievance, it was the stand of the respondent-State

that such candidates cannot be denied fresh appointment as there

is no bar under the law in applying again and getting selection on

the same post again and on account of the NCTE guidelines dated

11.02.2011 wherein the prescribed validity of RTET certificate was

7 years and validity of REET certificate was 3 years.

(vii) Being aggrieved of the impugned result dated 02.06.2018

and impugned selection list dated 10.06.2018 selecting the

candidates already working on the same post, the present writ

petition was filed with the following prayer:

"(i) That the impugned result dated 02.06.2018 and impugned selection list dated 10.06.2018 selecting the existing primary school teachers again on the post of Primary Teacher Gr. III (Level-1) in pursuance to advertisement dated 12.04.2018 may kindly be declared illegal and arbitrary and therefore same may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) The respondents may kindly be directed by issuing appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof:

(a) To declare such candidates as ineligible for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr. III (Level-

I) in pursuance to advertisement dated 12.04.2018 who are already working on the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-I);

(b) To declare such candidates ineligible for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr. III (Level- I) on selection in pursuance to advertisement dated 12.04.2018 who are already working on the same post in the same district in pursuance to earlier recruitment.

(c) In the alternatives respondents be directed to give appointment to the petitioners against the posts which would be vacated by such teachers on their fresh appointment in pursuance to advertisement dated 12.04.2018 with all consequential benefits.

(iii) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts

(10 of 18) [CW-13871/2018]

and circumstances of this case may kindly also be passed in favour of the petitioner."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners opened his

argument by emphasizing the importance of education. Learned

counsel submitted that Right To Education is an integral part of

Constitution of India and to achieve this constitutional mandate,

the Right Of Children To Free And Compulsory Education Act,

2009 (in short "RTE Act, 2009") was enacted. The state of

Rajasthan has also framed and enacted the Rajasthan Right To

Free And Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 (in short "RTE Rules,

2011"). It was submitted that the recruitment and appointment of

teachers has to be made after ascertaining the pupil-teacher ratio

as prescribed in RTE Act, 2009 and RTE Rules, 2011. Learned

counsel then advanced to the procedure of recruitment and

appointment of government teachers. Learned counsel submitted

that the appointment of teaches in Primary and Upper Primary

Schools is made under Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (in

short "Panchayati Act, 1994") and Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules,

1996 (in short "Panchayati Rules, 1996"). As per the rules, the

vacancies have to be anticipated each year and as far as Primary

Teacher Grade-III Level-I and Upper Primary Teacher Grade-III

Level-II are concerned, the vacancies so determined has to be

intimated to Director (Elementary Education), Rajasthan and after

receiving the requirement from various districts, the recruitment is

to be done in accordance with Rule 277-A of Panchayati Rules,

1996. In view of the above, learned counsel contends that the

whole objective of the RTE ACT 2009 would be frustrated if the

already appointed government teachers are allowed to be

(11 of 18) [CW-13871/2018]

appointed afresh in pursuance of new advertisement because it

would lead to a shortfall of those 3500 vacancies, thereby

disturbing the ratio of pupil to teacher as prescribed in the RTE

Act, 2009.

4. The next contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner is that as per the provisions of the Panchayati Act, 1994

and the Panchayati Rules, 1996, an existing primary and upper

primary teacher once appointed can change his/her district only

by way of transfer and he/she cannot be allowed to be relieved for

joining on account of fresh recruitment on the same post under

the same rules nor can he/she be allowed to resign from the same

post in a particular district to get fresh recruitment in another

district.

5. Qua the validity of the RTET/REET certificates, learned

counsel for the petitioner contends that the validity/currency of

the certificate does not mean that the candidate can be appointed

on the same post again and again in different recruitments in the

same department under the same rules.

6. Learned counsel submitted that the general instructions

and other information qua eligibility was prescribed in the clause

4.1 to 4.10 and clause 14.1 to 14.10 of the advertisement dated

12.04.2018. The relevant clause 4.10, 14.10, and 15.09 are

reproduced below:

"4.10 यदि कोई आवेिन जानबूझ कर असतय सूचनाएएं अएंककत करेगाा या कोई तथ्य/पूर्णबात छछिपायेगाा तो उसे अपात्र घोोषघोषित करते हएए िएंडाातमक काय्णवाहही ककी जाएगागी

14.10 ऐसे आवेिक जो पहले से राजककीय सेवा मे हो, या राजककीय औ घोगगाक उपक्रमरमों मे हो, या ककसगी प्रकार के अअनय

(12 of 18) [CW-13871/2018]

सएं घठनो मे हो, या गागैर सरकारही सएंससा मे छनयुक ए त हो उअनहे छनयकए ुकत के समय अपने छनयोुकता का अनापकतत प्रमार पत्र छनयकए ुकत अगअधिकारही को प्रसतत ए करना होगा। जो आवेिक पहले से हही राजककीय सेवा या उुकत उपक्रमरमों मे काय्णरत हगै उअनहे अपने छनयोुकता को इस भतती हेतए आवेिन करने ककी ललखखित सएचना िही जाकर अनापकतत प्रापत कर लेना चाइये। सएंभएंगअधित छनयकए ुकत अगअधिकारही के अनापकतत के प्रमार पत्र के आभाव मे अें अभयसती को पूव्ण सेवा से तयागा पत्र िेकर नव-छनयकए ुकत के समय तयागा पत्र प्रसतत ए करना होगाा

15.09 esjs ewy nLrkostksa dk vafre lR;kiu fu;qfDr nsus okyh laLFkk }kjk fd;k tk;sxkA ;fn blesa fdlh Hkh izdkj dh =qfV ;k deh vFkok dksbZ rF; xyr ik;k tk;s rks bldh lEiw.kZ ftEesnkjh esjh gksxhA**

As per clause 4.10, if any candidate knowingly mentions false

information or hides any material fact, apart from being declared

ineligible, punitive action would also be taken against such

candidate. Learned counsel contends that the material fact of

being already employed on the same post was intentionally

concealed by the private-respondents and therefore they should

have been declared ineligible for selection on that ground alone.

Besides this, as per sub-clause 9 of the Memo of Affidavit

prescribed in Clause 15 of the advertisement, such candidates

were entitled to be debarred. Furthermore, as per clause 14.10, a

candidate already in government service was required to obtain

No Objection Certificate (for short, "NOC") for appearing in the

exam in question. Without there being a valid NOC, such

candidates were not entitled to be relieved or to join in pursuance

of the present selection process. It was further argued that even

on account of resignation, an existing employee cannot be allowed

to be reappointed on the same post in the same district in

(13 of 18) [CW-13871/2018]

subsequent selection more particularly when resignation is given

after selection in the next recruitment.

7. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the

petitioner had relied upon a judgment of this Court in

Radheshyam Gurjar vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil

Writ Petition No. 21650/2018 decided on 26.09.2018) to

submit that Teacher Grade-III, already appointed, cannot be

appointed as Teacher Grade-III again. Learned counsel for the

petitioner had also relied upon a judgment of Uttrakhand High

Court in the case of Prakash Chandra Singh Danu and Ors. vs.

State of Uttarakhand and Ors. (Writ Petition (S/S) Nos. 623

and other connected matters decided on 29.07.2016) to

submit that in similar facts and circumstances, the Court had

directed that the candidature of applicants, who were already

appointed in the previous years on the same post, would not be

considered.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent at the

very outset raised an objection qua the locus standi of the

petitioners by asserting that after having participated in the

process of selection, being fully aware about the eligibility criteria,

the petitioners are estopped from questioning the method of

selection, as the present petitioners are those candidates who

were unsuccessful in the recruitment pursuant to advertisement

dated 12.04.2018. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted

that there is no bar under the law in applying again and getting

selection again for the same post, neither in the advertisement

nor in the rules. All the eligible candidates who were selected were

selected on merit having the valid REET/RTET certificate, which is

(14 of 18) [CW-13871/2018]

not disputed. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that

the petitioners' prayer for treating the candidates ineligible only on

the ground that they were already working on the post of Teacher

Grade-III Level-I is unsustainable as the private-respondents have

not violated any provisions of the advertisement or the rules. It

was further submitted that the private respondents have not

concealed or misrepresented anything and therefore the

presumption and assumption of the petitioners is without any

foundation. Lastly, it was contended that the petitioners have

failed to demonstrate any provision of law which debars and

restrains the eligibility and makes the private respondents

disentitled for appointment in the fresh recruitment and in want of

any such provisions, the prayers sought in the writ petition may

not be granted. In support of their contentions, learned counsels

for the respondents have relied upon judgment of Principal Seat,

Jodhpur of this Hon'ble High Court in the case of Dhanraj Meena

& Ors. vs. The State Of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No. 12846/2017 decided on 15.01.2018.)

9. Heard the arguments advanced by both the sides,

scanned the record and considered the judgments cited at Bar.

10. In the present case, it is noted that the merit of the

selected candidates/private respondents is undisputed. The

petitioners have not challenged the NCTE guidelines dated

11.02.2011 which prescribes the maximum period of seven years

as the validity of TET certificate. Therefore the only question which

is left to be determined by this Court is whether such certificate

could be used more than once to avail appointment on the same

post and if yes, whether the selection and appointment of such

(15 of 18) [CW-13871/2018]

candidates was barred in view of clause 4.10 and 14.10 of the

advertisement dated 12.04.2018?

11. Upon perusal of the advertisement and the rules, it is

observed that the criteria of selection was prescribed in Clause 4.4

and 13.2 of the advertisement dated 12.04.2018. As per the said

criteria, the selection was based upon highest marks secured by

candidates in any of REET 2015, 2017 or RTET 2011, 2012. Upon

careful examination of the advertisement dated 12.04.2018, the

provisions of Panchayati Act, 1994 and the Panchayati Rules,

1996, the NCTE Guidelines and the affidavit submitted by the

Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Government of

Rajasthan, it is noted that there is no express bar anywhere which

restricts the candidates from using the same certificate again in

further recruitment process, as long as the certificate remains in

currency. The advertisement dated 12.04.2018 was an open

advertisement and there is nothing in the advertisement or the

rules to suggest that candidates who are already working in

government service are debarred from applying. The

advertisement and the rules puts no prohibition for disallowing the

candidates, who have joined service under the earlier direct

recruitment, from applying or getting selected again on the same

post under the new recruitment. Therefore, this Court is of the

view that there is no bar in using the REET/RTET certificate again

while applying under further advertisement, be it for the same

post or otherwise.

12. The contention of the petitioner that the people who

are already working on the post of Teacher Grade-III Level-I could

not be selected without obtaining prior permission/NOC of the

(16 of 18) [CW-13871/2018]

concerned Zila Parishad is also not tenable. Clause 14.10 of the

advertisement dated 12.04.2018 does not debar employees of the

State from participating in the selection process. Rather, it

prescribes the condition in which employees of the State may

apply. Clause 14.10 stipulates that applicants who are already in

government service, or in government undertakings, or in any

other organization, or appointed in a non-governmental

organization, will have to submit the no-objection certificate of

their employer to the appointing authority at the time of

appointment. Further, applicants who are already employed in

government service or the above mentioned undertakings should

obtain clearance by giving written notice to their employer to

apply for this recruitment. In the absence of the no-objection

certificate from the concerned appointing authority, the candidate

will have to resign from the previous service and submit the

resignation letter at the time of new appointment. Therefore it is

crystal clear that in absence of NOC, such applicants are required

to resign from their erstwhile service and produce the resignation

letter/certificate at the time of new appointment to fulfil the

necessary compliance of Clause 14.10 contained in the

advertisement dated 12.04.2018. Moreover, in the affidavit filed

by the Principal Secretary, School Education Department,

Government of Rajasthan, it is duly admitted that Clause 4.10 and

14.10 would be followed and complied with in letter and in spirit.

13. Now that it is established that the applicants already

working on the post of Teacher Grade-III Level-I could participate

and get selected in fresh recruitment procedure for the same post

using the existing valid certificate, this Court will now deal with

(17 of 18) [CW-13871/2018]

the contention of the petitioner that there would be a shortfall of

about 3500 vacancies which purportedly would disturb the

prescribed ratio of pupil to teacher. It was submitted by the

respondent-State that when a candidate who is already in service

joins a new post under the new recruitment, then his/her earlier

post becomes vacant and that vacant post is included in

calculating vacancies for the next recruitment and for calculating

vacancies in the next recruitment, all the posts which becomes

vacant because of various reasons like death, retirement,

resignation, promotion, etc. are included while calculating

vacancies for the next recruitment. This Court is fairly convinced

with the said submission and since the matter of determining

vacancies falls within the exclusive domain of the State, this Court

is not inclined to interfere with the same.

14. The judgment of Prakash Chandra Singh Danu

(supra), relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners, being

on entirely different footings, is not applicable in the facts and

circumstances of the present case for the reasons that, firstly,

there was an express bar in the advertisement itself therein with

respect to such candidates who were already working on the said

post, whereas the advertisement dated 12.04.2018 was an open

advertisement with no such bar; and secondly, merit of the

successful candidates was challenged in the relied upon case,

whereas, in the present case, the merit of the selected

candidates/private-respondents is undisputed. For the aforesaid

reasons, the judgment of Prakash Chandra Singh Danu

(supra) is distinguishable.

(18 of 18) [CW-13871/2018]

15. The judgment of Co-ordinate bench of this Court, in the

case of Dhanraj Meena (supra), relied upon by learned counsel

for the respondents, is worth consideration. Co-ordinate bench of

this Court allowed the prayer of the applicants who were

appointed as Teacher Grade-III pursuant to an advertisement

issued in the year 2012, to be relieved from the same post so that

they could join at a new place on the same of post of Teacher

Grade-III pursuant to subsequent advertisement issued in the

year 2013.

16. Lastly, the petitioners being unsuccessful candidates,

cannot be permitted to turn around and challenge the criteria of

selection. Principles of estoppel and acquiescence would come into

operation. Reliance in this regard can be placed on Hon'ble Apex

Court judgments of Ramesh Chandra Shah and Ors. vs. Anil

Joshi and Ors.: (2013) 11 SCC 309, K.A. Nagamani vs.

Indian Airlines and Ors.: (2009) 5 SCC 515, and Manish

Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar and Ors.: (2010) 12 SCC

17. In view of the aforementioned, and considering the

judgment of Co-ordinate bench in the case of Dhanraj Meena

(supra), this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ

petitions.

18. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. Pending

applications, if any, stands disposed of.

(SAMEER JAIN),J

Pooja /31-32

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)