Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hariom vs The State Of Rajasthan on 24 January, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1602/2023
Hariom S/o Shri Ramgajendra, Aged About 20 Years, Resident Of
Village Bahramda, Manjhi, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Panchayati Raj, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Elementary Education, Government Of
Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The President, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur.
4. The Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur.
5. The Member Secretary, Rehabilitation Council Of India, B-
22, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi 110016.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Inderjeet Yadav
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D.S.Beniwal
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
24/01/2023
1. The petitioner having completed graduation and diploma in
Special Education, has approached this Court with the case that
he possesses requisite educational qualification in light of the
communication dated 20.04.2009 (Annex.-3), 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. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner
that in the case of Special Teachers, the qualification prescribed or
conclusion drawn by the Rehabilitation Council of India are binding
(2 of 3) [CW-1602/2023]
irrespective of the educational qualification prescribed by the
NCTE.
3. Learned counsel 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 petitioner's 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 petitioner 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 petitioner 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
(3 of 3) [CW-1602/2023]
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.3 and 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 learned counsel for the petitioner for effecting service
through speed post.
11. Meanwhile, respondent Selection Board is directed to permit
the petitioners to file their online/offline form, in case it is
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
3-akansha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
