Neeru vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 6718 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:27686]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10593/2023

1. Manju Bala D/o Ram Kumar, W/o Satveer, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Rampura Urf Ramsara, Tehsil Tibbi, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)

2. Suveena D/o Balwan Singh, W/o Bazir, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Nangal, Po Sherpura, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)

3. Monika D/o Om Prakash, W/o Mahavir Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Near Govt. Sr. Sec. School (Adhyapak Quarter) Dabri, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)

4. Indu Bala D/o Bagrawat Singh, W/o Vinod Kumar, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village Charanwasi Po. Malwani, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)

5. Sunita Devi D/o Om Parkash, W/o Sandeep Kumar, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Ward No. 4 Vpo Deeplana, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)

6. Dayanand Yadav S/o Sher Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/ o Village Hudiya Khurd, Po. Hudiya Kalan, Tehsil Neemrana, District Alwar (Raj.)

7. Laxmi Devi D/o Ramnivash, W/o Sandeep Kumar, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Vpo Bhanai, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)

8. Kamlesh Kumar S/o Shodan Ram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Ward No. 10, Vpo. Jabasar, Tehsil Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

9. Satyamev Azad S/o Lilaram, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Ward No. 1, Pathana, Tehsil Buhana, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

10. Vinod Kumar Meena S/o Panna Lal Meena, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Behind Tantia Well, Near Hanuman Dhora, Ward No. 22 Sardarshahar, District Churu (Raj.)

11. Kavita D/o Hari Ram, W/o Sunil Kumar, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Ward No. 1, Vpo Bhirani, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)

12. Kavita D/o Ramchander, W/o Vinod Kumar Khati, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Ward No. 2, 25 Jsn, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)

----Petitioners Versus

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

[2023:RJ-JD:27686] (2 of 9) [CW-10593/2023]

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

3. The Director, Elementary Education Rajasthan Bikaner (Raj.).

4. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board (Raj), Office Address -

Agriculture Management Institution Campus Durgapura Jaipur (Raj) Through Its Chairman.

----Respondents Connected with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11436/2023

1. Sandeep S/o Jagdish Chander, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Vpo Gudia Khera, Tehsil And District Sirsa (Haryana).

2. Asha D/o Rajender, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Ward No. 3, Vpo Parlika, 20 Ntr, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

3. Ajay Kumar S/o Mahabir, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Vpo Pili Mandori, Tehsil An District Fathabad (Haryana).

4. Madhu Soni D/o Manpal W/o Suresh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Vpo Panniwala Mota, Tehsil And District Sirsa (Haryana).

5. Komal Rani D/o Radhe Shyam, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Ward No. 5, Village Ali Mohammed, Po Nezia, Tehsil And District Sirsa (Haryana).

6. Rekha D/o Mohinder Kumar W/o Rohtash Kumar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Vpo Nathusari Kalan, Tehsil Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa (Haryana).

7. Jyoti Sharma D/o Dharam Pal W/o Pawan Kumar, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Silani, Tehsil Sohna, District Gurgaon (Haryana).

----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 (Raj.).

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

----Respondents

[2023:RJ-JD:27686] (3 of 9) [CW-10593/2023]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11642/2023

1. Neeru D/o Kundan Lal, W/o Rajesh Kumar, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Ward No. 15, Near Aror Vansh Gurudwara, Padampur, Tehsil Padampur, District Shri Ganganagar (Raj.)

2. Suman Rani D/o Krishan Lal, W/o Vimal Kumar, Aged About 37 Years, R/o H. No. C-237, Ward No. 1, Civil Lines, Hanumangarh Jn, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)

3. Shallu Rani D/o Sohan Lal, W/o Mahesh Arora, Aged About 46 Years, R/o H. No. 31, Street No. 08, Near Ram Dass Grurudwara, Setia Colony, Shri Ganganagar, District Shri Ganganagar (Raj.)

4. Raj Kumar S/o Subhash Chander, Aged About 35 Years, R/ o Village Dangar Khera, District Fazilka (Punjab)

----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 (Raj.).

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

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12237/2023

1. Vinod Kumar S/o Rotash Kumar, Aged About 37 Years, R/o V.p.o. Nangal Choudhary, Nalapur Mohalla, Ward No. 8 Tehsil Narnaul District Mahendergarh (Haryana).

2. Sakshi Bala D/o Ashok Kumar, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Bacher, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa (Haryana).

3. Mamta D/o Madan Lal, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Vpo Lakhuana, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa (Haryana).

4. Kuldeep Singh S/o Mulchand, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Ward No. 10, Near New Rama Sabji Mandi, Nohar, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

5. Sunil Kumar S/o Patram, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Vpo Mordha, Tehsil Kotputali, District Jaipur (Raj.).

6. Amita D/o Hari Prasad W/o Ramawtar Sharma, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Village Heerawala, Po. Kunthara

[2023:RJ-JD:27686] (4 of 9) [CW-10593/2023]

Khurd, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur (Raj.).

7. Poonam Devi D/o Rajbir Singh W/o Narender Kumar, Aged About 38 Years, R/o H. No. 140, Vpo Dhani Miran, Tehsil Tosham, District Bhiwani (Haryana).

8. Manju Devi D/o Vijay Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Vpo Ban Mandori, Tehsil And District Fathabad (Haryana).

9. Rukmani D/o Amarsingh W/o Sunil Kumar, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Ward No. 10, 3 Hlm, Jorawarpura, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

10. Satya Pal S/o Deepa Ram, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Ward No. 11, 2 Stp, Haripura, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

11. Suman Bala D/o Sher Singh W/o Sandeep Kumar, Aged About 35 Years, R/o H. No. 537, Ward No. 11, Vpo Barwa, Tehsil Siwani Mandi, District Bhiwani (Haryana).

12. Kavita D/o Mahender Singh, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Ward No. 10, Vpo Gadhara, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

13. Sandeep Kaur D/o Hartaj Singh W/o Rajvinder Singh, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Ward No. 11, Vpo Amargarh, Tehsil Sadulshahar, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

14. Mamta Bai D/o Satyanarain W/o Dinesh Kumar, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village Beenjhpur, Po Partapur, 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 (Raj.).

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

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sushil Bishnoi. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG with Mr. Rishi Soni.

Mr. Vinit Sanadhya.

[2023:RJ-JD:27686] (5 of 9) [CW-10593/2023]

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Order

02/09/2023

1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners

aggrieved of the action of the respondents in treating the

petitioners as ineligible on account of the fact that the petitioners

are not having the degree of graduation in the subject concerned

as optional subject and a prayer has been made that they be

declared eligible for the post of Teacher Gr.III (Level-II) in the

respective subjects on the strength of their graduation with the

said subject as compulsory subject studied in all the three years of

graduation.

2. It is, inter-alia, indicated in the petitions that pursuant to the

advertisement dated 16.12.2022 (Annex.1), the petitioners

applied for the post of Teacher Gr.III (Level-II) for Class 6 to 8.

The eligibility, inter-alia, required the candidates to have passed

the graduation with the subject as optional subject. In the result

declared on 09.06.2023 by the Staff Selection Board ('the Board')

(Annex.12), the roll numbers of the petitioners were reflected as

those candidates who were called for document verification.

3. It is, inter-alia, indicated in SBCWP No.10593/2023 that

during course of document verification vide Annex.13, the team,

which undertook the document verification made a note that as

the candidate has not passed the graduation with the concerned

subject as optional, he was ineligible.

4. It is submitted that the action of the respondents in holding

the petitioners as ineligible is ex-facie contrary to the law laid

down by this Court in Komal Purohit v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. :

[2023:RJ-JD:27686] (6 of 9) [CW-10593/2023]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13707/2018 and other connected

matters, decided on 12.10.2018, which judgment has been

affirmed in State of Rajasthan v. Manisha Rani & Ors. : D.B.

Special Appeal (Writ) No.1876/2018 and other connected matters,

decided on 10.12.2018.

5. Further submissions have been made that the judgment in

the case of Komal Purohit (supra) was based on Division Bench

judgment in RPSC v. Deepak Bariya : D.B. Special Appeal (Writ)

No.528/2018, decided on 07.03.2018, against which, Special

Leave Petition No.24325/2018 came to be dismissed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court on 14.09.2018. Subsequent thereto, the

candidates, who were involved in the recruitment, which was dealt

with in the case of Komal Purohit (supra) were accorded

appointments by the respondents and therefore, holding of the

petitioners now as ineligible is ex-facie contrary to the law laid

down by this Court and therefore, the said action deserves to be

set-aside.

6. Learned AAG appearing for the State made submissions that

the action of the team scrutinizing the eligibility of the candidates

apparently is guided by the instructions (Annex.14), wherein the

candidates, who have not done their graduation with the subject

concerned as optional subject have been held to be ineligible,

however, it is submitted that the judgment in the case of Komal

Purohit (supra) upheld by the Division Bench, holds the field

wherein a contrary determination has been made by this Court.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the Board made submissions

that the Board is yet to issue the selection list and that the

[2023:RJ-JD:27686] (7 of 9) [CW-10593/2023]

rejection of the candidature has been made at the level of the

State Government.

8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

9. The facts are not in dispute, wherein the petitioners are

identically placed to those petitioners, who had approached this

Court by filing batch of writ petitions led by Komal Purohit (supra).

The determination made in the case of Komal Purohit (supra),

after referring to the Division Bench judgment in the case of

Deepak Bariya (supra), inter-alia, reads as under :-

"A perusal of the above Division Bench judgment would reveal that the Court noticed the issue about ineligibility of the candidates, who opt for a subject as a compulsory subject in graduation course and the requirement is of the subject as an optional subject, came to a categorical conclusion that the candidate having opted for English as a compulsory subject in the graduation course, the object of the Rules is satisfied. Once the Division Bench based on its interpretation of the identical Rule/requirement, came to the conclusion that a candidate having opted for English as a compulsory subject in the graduation course satisfied the object of the Rules, the determination made by the respondents holding the petitioners as ineligible cannot be sustained.

So far as the judgment in the case of Saroj (supra) is concerned, though the same apparently was not cited before the Division Bench, in view of the Division Bench judgment in the case of Deepak Bariya (supra), the judgment in the case of Saroj (supra) has lost its efficacy and, therefore, the determination made by the committee relying on the judgment in the case of Saroj (supra) in ignorance of the Division Bench judgment in the case of Deepak Bariya (supra), cannot be sustained.

Consequently, the action of the respondents in insisting for English as optional subject at the graduation level and holding the candidates like the petitioners, who have studied English as compulsory subject at the graduation level, cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside."

10. The determination made is categoric and specific, wherein it

was laid down that the action of the respondents in insisting for

the subject in question as optional subject at the graduation level

and holding the candidates like the petitioners, who have studied

[2023:RJ-JD:27686] (8 of 9) [CW-10593/2023]

subject concerned as compulsory subject at the graduation level,

cannot be sustained.

11. Admittedly, the order in the case of Komal Purohit (supra)

came to be affirmed by the Division Bench and the candidates,

who had approached this Court in the case of Komal Purohit

(supra) and other similarly placed candidates were held eligible

and were accorded appointments by the respondents.

12. The State for the purpose of guidance of the documents

scrutiny team of the candidates has issued instructions /

guidelines (Annex.14), which, inter-alia, on the subject matter

provides as under :-

83 vik= v/;kid] ysoy&n~ orh; gsrq Lukrd esa lacfU/kr ,sfPNd fo"k; ds lkFk mŸkhZ.kZ ugha gS] bl dkj.k vik=A

13. The above guidance is ex-facie contrary to the law laid down

by this Court and the same, therefore, cannot be sustained.

14. In view of the above fact situation, wherein the respondents

contrary to the law laid down by this Court, have issued

instructions (Annex.14) and pursuant to the said instructions,

candidates like the petitioners have been held ineligible / are likely

to be held ineligible during document verification, the action

cannot be sustained.

15. Consequently, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are

allowed. The instructions (Annex.14) to the extent of Sr. No.83

(quoted herein-before), is quashed and set-aside. The cases

wherein the candidates have been held to be ineligible during

course of document verification, those determination are also

[2023:RJ-JD:27686] (9 of 9) [CW-10593/2023]

quashed and set-aside and in cases, where the document

verification is yet to take place, the respondents are restrained

from holding the candidates ineligible based on the above

guideline at Sr. No.83.

16. The Board is directed to treat the candidates like the

petitioners, who have opted for the subject as a compulsory

subject in graduation as eligible and in case, they fall in merit,

include them in the list of selected candidates.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 26,37,38 & 57-Rmathur/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)