Raja Ram vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 728 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 815/2023

1. Raja Ram S/o Banshi Lal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Palli II, Tehsil Lohawat, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

2. Manoj Kumar S/o Luna Ram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o VPO Nathwaniya, Tahsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)

3. Madan Lal S/o Om Prakash, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Village Kharsandi Lalania Nath, Tahsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)

4. Karan Verma S/o Jasvir Singh, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Village1 M.L Kaluwala, Tahsil And District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)

5. Amit Kumar S/o Bipati Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Vpo Dharsoni, Tahsil Dharsoni, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

6. Gordhan Singh S/o Rati Ram, Aged About 34 Years, R/o VPO Dhaur , Tahsil Anddistrict Bharatpur (Raj.)

7. Shobha Kumari D/o Darab Sing, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Lulhara Paharsar, Tahsil And District Bharatpur (Raj.)

8. Krishna D/o Om Prakash, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Chak 27 M.L Sajanwala Ridmalsar, Tahsil Padampur District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)

9. Rajni D/o Mohar Singh, Aged About 31 Years, R/o VPO Palka, Tahsil Nagar, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

10. Ravinder Babal S/o Sita Ram, Aged About 24 Years, R/o VPO Malwani, Tahsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)

11. Narendra Kumar S/o Krishna Devi, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Suratpura, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)

12. Chandrabhan S/o Makkhan Singh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Nagla Kalyan, Tehsil Uchchain, District Bharapur (Raj.)

13. Saurav Kumar S/o Kailash Chand, Aged About 26 Years, R/o VPO Beri , Tehsil Anddistrict Bharapur (Raj.)

14. Vishvendra Singh S/o Vipati Ram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o VPO Dharsoni Tehsil Dharsoni District Bharapur (Raj.)

15. Saurav S/o Hanuman Prasad, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Ranjeetpura Mohanmagaria, Tehsil Rawatsar District

(2 of 4) [CW-815/2023]

Hanumangarh (Raj.)

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Principal Secretary Education Department (Elementary), Government Of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. The Director Elementary Education, Rajasthan Bikaner.

4. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur (Raj) Office Address- Agriculture Management Institution Campus Durgapura Jaipur (Raj) Through Its Chairman.

5. National Council For Teacher Education, Hans Bhawan, Wing No.2, 1 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002, Through Its Secretary.

6. Rehabilitation Council Of India (Rci), Office Address- B-22 Qutub Institution Area New Delhi -110016Through Its Secretary.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Sushil Bishnoi
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. D.S. Beniwal



                    JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                    Order

19/01/2023

1. The petitioners having completed graduation and diploma in

Special Education, have approached this Court with the case that

they possess requisite educational qualification in light of the

communication dated 05.12.2006 (Annex.-8), issued by the

Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI), so also clause (6) of the

advertisement No.13/2022, dated 16.12.2022.

2. It is asserted by Mr. Sushil Bishnoi, learned counsel for the

petitioner that in the case of Special Teachers, the qualification

(3 of 4) [CW-815/2023]

prescribed or conclusion drawn by the Rehabilitation Council of

India are binding irrespective of the educational qualification

prescribed by the NCTE.

3. Mr. Bishnoi invited Court's attention towards the proceedings

dated 21.07.2022 of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Writ Petition

Civil No.132/2016 : Rajneesh Kumar Pandey Vs. Union of India :

2021 and argued that in the above referred order of the Supreme

Court, the communication/notification issued by the RCI has been

treated to be a direction by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and thus,

the respondents cannot deny petitioners' rights to be given

appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III Level-II Special

Education, when the RCI has clarified that the Diploma done by

the petitioner is equivalent to CTT course.

4. Mr. D.S. Beniwal, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent - Selection Board, relied upon a Division Bench

judgment of this Court dated 14.12.2022 in Usha Kumari & Ors.

Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : D.B. Special Appeal Writ

No.149/2022 and submitted that the arguments advanced by the

learned counsel for the petitioners are not tenable in light of the

adjudication made by the Division Bench on the issue involved in

the present case.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the grant of interim

relief.

6. Prima facie, arguments of Mr. Beniwal appears to be correct

that the issue has been decided against the petitioners by the

Division Bench by its judgment dated 14.12.2022, but then, it is

to be noted that order dated 21.07.2022 of the Hon'ble the

Supreme Court does not appear to have been brought to the

(4 of 4) [CW-815/2023]

notice of the Division Bench when the above referred case of Usha

Kumari (supra) was decided.

7. Issue notice to the respondents.

8. Mr. D.S. Beniwal accepts notice on behalf of the respondent

No.4.

9. Let notices returnable on 22.02.2023 be issued to the

remaining respondents.

10. Notices be filed in two sets, out of which one set be given

dasti to Mr. Bishnoi for effecting service through speed post.

11. Meanwhile, respondent Selection Board is directed to permit

the petitioners to file their online/offline forms, in case they are

submitted by 25.01.2023.

12. On the application form being submitted, the respondent -

Selection Board shall issue admit cards to the petitioners and

permit them to appear in the examinations as and when held,

however, their result shall not be declared without the leave of the

Court.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 27-Ramesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)