Gaurav vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 983 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1552/2023

1. Gaurav S/o Mohan Lal, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Mithi Surera (110) Sirsa, Khari Sureran, Haryana 125102.

2. Manish Kumar Sharma S/o Ramniwas Sharma, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Ward No. 14 Prayagpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. Dileep Kumar Saini S/o Babu Lal Mali, Aged About 27 Years, R/ o Ward No. 2 Mandha, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

4. Satish Kumar Sharma S/o Kalu Ram Sharma, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Ravpura, Post Bhuranpura, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners

Versus

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

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

3. Director, Elementary Education, Directorate, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

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

5. National Council For Teacher Education, (Ncte), 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 -110016 Through Its Secretary.

                                                                         ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)              :     Mr. VLS Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s)              :     Mr. D.S. Beniwal


                          JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
                                          Order

24/01/2023




                                     (2 of 3)                       [CW-1552/2023]

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. VLS Rajpurohit, 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. VLS Rajpurohit 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.

(3 of 3) [CW-1552/2023]

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 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. Rajpurohit 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 410-Mak/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)