Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Asha Ram Gurjar vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 29 March, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2023/RJJD/008057]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10691/2021
Asha Ram Gurjar S/o Ganpat Lal Gurjar, Aged About 33 Years, R/
o Pathik Nagar Ii, Tehsil Bijoliya, Distt. Bhilwara, (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Elementary Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The Director, Department Of Elementary Education,
Bikaner (Raj.).
3. The District Education Officer, Department Of Elementary
Education, Bundi (Raj.).
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, District Bundi
(Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Parang Joiya for Ms. Saeena Bano
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Chandak
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
29/03/2023
1. Mr. Deepak Chandak, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents submits that the controversy has been set at rest by
the Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated
14.12.2022 rendered in the case of Usha Kumari & Ors. Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ.
No.149/2022).
2. The Division Bench in the case of Usha Kumari (supra) has
held thus:-
"Sarita Sharma's case was specifically related
to the Teacher Gr.III Level II (Special Education)
[2023/RJJD/008057] (2 of 3) [CW-10691/2021]
and the issued involved therein was the issue akin
as involved in the present matter. The Judgment of
Sarita Sharma being affirmed by the Division Bench
would definitely apply to the present matter and this
Court is bound to follow the same. So far as
other judgments cited by learned counsel for the
appellants-petitioners are concerned, all of them
pertain to the recruitment qua Teacher Gr.III Level I
(Special Education) and have been decided relying
upon Pritam Kumar Tak's case (supra). As observed
above, Pritam Kumar Tak's ratio would not be
applicable in the present matter as the same is
clearly distinguishable. So far as clause 9.2
is concerned, the same specifies that the syllabus
prescribed for diploma certificate/degree recognised
by the RCI for the purposes of special education
would only be applicable and cannot be read to
mean that the qualifications itself would be
prescribed by the RCI. The only intent of the clause
which can be concluded is that a diploma/degree in
special education which is recognised by the RCI
would only be termed to be a valid diploma/degree.
There can be no quarrel over the said proposition.
RCI is definitely the authority to recognise the
diploma courses as well as the degree courses
pertaining to Special Education and therefore, the
degrees or certificates issued/recognised by the RCI
could only be considered for the purposes of
appointment. But by virtue of said authority, it
cannot be concluded that RCI is authorised to
prescribe qualification itself. As observed in the
preceding paras, NCTE is the only authority
authorised to prescribe the qualifications and the
State is bound to follow the same.
Admittedly, the NCTE has prescribed B.Ed.
(Special Education) qualification for Teacher Gr.III
Level II (Special Education) and Diploma (Special
Education) for Teacher Gr.III Level I (Special
Education). As held in Sarita Sharma's case (supra),
providing two different qualifications for two
different level of Teachers is with a specific intent
and the NCTE being the final authority to provide the
same, the same cannot be disputed. Moreover, the
validity of notifications dated 23.08.2010 and
19.07.2011, whereby the NCTE had provided for the
said qualifications was challenged in past and the
said challenge was rejected by the Division Bench of
this Court. Meaning thereby, the qualifications as
prescribed are valid in eyes of law and cannot be
questioned/disputed now.
In view of above observations, we are of the
specific opinion that the judgment as passed in the
[2023/RJJD/008057] (3 of 3) [CW-10691/2021]
case of Usha Kumari is perfectly in consonance with
law and therefore, deserves to be affirmed.
Resultantly,
(i) D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) Nos.357/2020,
477/2020, 98/2021 and 86/2020 are hereby allowed.
The common impugned order dated 09.12.2019
passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition Nos.16488/2018, 17833/2018 and
16619/2018 is set aside."
3. Following the Division Bench's judgment rendered in the case
of Usha Kumari (supra), the present writ petition is dismissed.
4. Stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
63-Arvind/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
