Ramkishor Saini vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 982 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1601/2023

1. Ramkishor Saini S/o Babu Lal, Aged About 25 Years, Bhuriyalal Ki Dhani, Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

2. Mahesh Kumar S/o Jetha Ram, Aged About 28 Years, Deram Nagar, Vpo Newra Road, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

3. Opi Lal S/o Bhagirath Ram, Aged About 31 Years, Bpo Bheem Sagar, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

4. Rekha D/o Sai Ram Manju, Aged About 31 Years, Manjuo Ki Dhani Matol Chak, Dayasagar, Phalodi, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

5. Deepanshu S/o Satyaveer Singh Yadav, Aged About 23 Years, Vpo Rodwal, Tehsil Neemrana, District Alwar (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 - 11002, Through Its Secretary.

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

                                                        ----Respondents



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




                       JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                       Order

24/01/2023

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 of 3) [CW-1601/2023]

2. It is asserted by Mr. Sushil Bishnoi, 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 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

(3 of 3) [CW-1601/2023]

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

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 c-2-Mak/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)