Rajasthan High Court

Mithlesh Kumar Sharma vs State And Ors (2024:Rj-Jp:12705) on 13 March, 2024

Author: Ganesh Ram Meena

Bench: Ganesh Ram Meena

[2024:RJ-JP:12705]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2038/2000

Mithlesh Kumar Sharma, S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, aged
47 years, R/o Ward No. 8, Garh Colony, near Water Works Office,
Kotputli, District Jaipur.
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
     1. State    of   Rajasthan         through         Secretary,     Secondary
       Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.
     2. Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
     3. Dy. Director, Education, Jaipur Range, Jaipur.
     4. District Education Officer, Secondary, Jaipur-I, Jaipur.

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Hemant Kumar Sharma
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Basant Singh Chhaba, AAG with
                                 Mr. Avinash Choudhary
                                 Mr. Utkarsh Dwivedi
                                 Mr. Shubhendu Pilania
                                 Mr. Rahul Gupta
                                 Mr. Aditya Raj
                                 Mr. Aniket Beniwal
                                 Mr. Hardik Singh
                                 Mr. Ayush Sharma



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

                           Judgment / Order

13/03/2024

1.    Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was

initially appointed on the post of Teacher Grade-III (General) vide

order dated 17.02.1981 and was confirmed vide order dated

23.06.1984. Counsel further submits that the respondents issued

a circular dated 06.01.2000 withdrawing all orders of deleting the

names of the teachers from the list of Craft Teachers and given

place in the list of Teachers (General). Counsel also submits that


                      (Downloaded on 20/03/2024 at 08:43:41 PM)
 [2024:RJ-JP:12705]                   (2 of 10)                         [CW-2038/2000]



the respondents have allowed promotion to the persons who were

junior to the petitioner and the case of the petitioner has not been

considered for promotion to the post of Senior Teacher Grade-II.

Counsel also submits that the action of the respondents is not

allowing the promotion to the petitioner on the post of Senior

Teacher Grade-III in the year 1999, is illegal and arbitrary.

Counsel further submits that similarly situated persons namely;

Mahavir     Prasad    and    Sona      Ram       Yadav       have   been    allowed

promotion on the post of Teacher Grade-III being Craft Teachers

but the same benefits have not been extended to the petitioner.

2.    Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the

petitioner was appointed as Craft Teacher vide order dated

17.02.1981 as he was holding the requisite qualification for

appointment as Craft Teacher. Counsel further submits that on the

date of initial appointment, the petitioner was not holding the

qualification to be appointed as Teacher Grade-III (General).

Counsel further submits that one Mahavir Prasad was appointed as

Teacher Grade-III (General) vide order dated 02.11.1984 issued

by the Office of Panchayat Samiti, Kotputli, District Jaipur.

3.    Counsel also submits that the petitioner was holding the

Trade Certificate and he was entitled to be appointed as Teacher

Grade-III     (General).      Counsel         further        submits     that    the

circular/order dated 30.10.1992 issued by the Government of

Rajasthan speaks that circular dated 06.08.1984 provides that

certificates of trade examinations and certificates of handicraft

issued by the Vidya Bhawan, Udaipur will be treated equivalent to

the basic training.




                      (Downloaded on 20/03/2024 at 08:43:41 PM)
 [2024:RJ-JP:12705]                  (3 of 10)                    [CW-2038/2000]



4.    Considered the submissions made by counsel for the

petitioner as well as the counsel for the respondents.

5. The facts borne out from the pleadings are that the

petitioner was initially appointed as Teacher Grade-III under the

Head of Craft Teacher vide order dated 17.02.1981 and was

confirmed vide order dated 23.06.1984. The name of the

petitioner was deleted from the list of Craft Teachers vide order

dated 25.02.1999 and was included in the list of Teacher Grade-

III. The respondents issued a circular dated 06.01.2000, where it

was observed that all those persons who were appointed as Craft

Teachers were not to be included as Teacher Grade-III (General),

and if any orders have been passed by any authorities, the same

are treated to be cancelled.

6. The petitioner being aggrieved by the circular/order dated

06.01.2000, has filed this petition and has prayed that he may be

treated as Teacher Grade-III (General) and he be allowed all the

consequential benefits including promotion to the post of Senior

Teacher Grade-II.

7. The petitioner was initially appointed as Teacher Grade-III

(Craft) and was placed at Serial No. 41 in the appointment order

under the head of matric, and handicraft training. The requisite

qualification for appointment as Teacher Grade-III (General) at the

relevant time was Matriculation with certificate of training.

8. On the date of appointment the petitioner was holding the

qualification of Higher Secondary and a certificate of trade was

issued by the Vidya Bhawan Kala Sansthan, Udaipur. The

qualification which the petitioner was possessing at the time of

appointment is not the requisite qualification for appointment on

[2024:RJ-JP:12705] (4 of 10) [CW-2038/2000]

the post of Teacher Grade-III (General). The contention of the

counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as

Teacher Grade-III (General) is wholly misconceived because he

cannot be appointed as Teacher Grade-III (General) at the

relevant time because he was not possessing the requisite

certificate of training. The certificate of training as referred in

schedule appended to the Rajasthan Education Subordinate

Service Rules, 1971 for purpose of recruitment to the post of

Teacher Grade-III refers to a certificate of training in regard to

teaching of the students. The certificate of training as referred in

the schedule for Teacher Grade-III (General) does not include any

trade certificate. Candidates having the trade certificate of a

particular trade cannot be treated to be eligible for appointment as

Teacher Grade-III (General).

9. In the present case the petitioner is holding the trade

certificate and he can only be appointed as Craft Teacher and thus

the contention of the petitioner that he was appointed as Teacher

Grade-III (General) without having the qualification of certificate

of training is not sustainable.

10. The petitioner has made a challenge to the circular dated

06.01.2000 which was also a subject matter of challenge in S.B.

Civil Writ Petition No. 1632/2001 Vijay Kumar Sharma Vs.

State and Ors. Decided on 30.05.2001 along with the 13 other

connected writ petitions.

11. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Vijay Kumar

Sharma (supra) and Ors. has observed as under:-

"Counsel appearing for the respective parties state at Bar that they shall be satisfied if the effect of the circular dated 06.01.2000 (Annex. 5 to the writ petition) is clarified by this Court.

[2024:RJ-JP:12705] (5 of 10) [CW-2038/2000]

A bare reading of the circular issued by the Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, clearly indicates that the circular is in relation to the teachers Gr.III appointed in the Education Department as Craft Teacher, Drawing Teacher and Music Teacher. The circular says that unless and until the Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971, are not amended the seniority or any other benefit of general teachers can not be given to the Teachers appointed as Craft Teachers, Drawing Teachers and Music Teachers. It is claimed by the petitioners that they have been appointed as General Teachers and were not appointed as Craft Teachers, Music Teachers and Drawing Teachers. Thus, on plain reading of the circular issued if the petitioners are appointed as general teachers their cases shall not be governed by the circular issued. The circular is only in regard to the teachers appointed as Craft Teachers, Music Teachers and Drawing Teachers. The circular dated 06.01.2000 is clarified and shall apply to those teachers only who are covered under the circular."

12. The validity of the circular dated 06.01.2000 was in a manner upheld by the Co-ordinate Bench with certain clarificatory observations. It was clarified by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court that the aforesaid circular is not applicable to the teachers who were appointed as General Teachers. Since, as observed above, the petitioner was appointed as Teacher Grade-III (Craft), his case is covered under the directions given under that circular. Counsel for the petitioner is not able to show any specific ground so as to challenge the legality of this circular dated 06.01.2000.

13. In the averments made in Para 3 & 4 the writ petition, the

petitioner has specifically stated that he was appointed as Craft

Teacher. The aforesaid averments made in the writ petition are

supported by an affidavit on oath.

14. Taking into consideration the appointment order and the

averments made in the writ petition and so also the basic

qualification required for appointment at the relevant time, this

Court can safely held that the petitioner was appointed as Craft

[2024:RJ-JP:12705] (6 of 10) [CW-2038/2000]

Teacher and the contention of the petitioner that he was appointed

as Teacher Grade-III (General) is wholly misconceived.

15. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the similarly

situated persons namely; Mahavir Prasad and Sona Ram Yadav,

who were initially appointed as Craft Teacher, have been extended

the benefit of promotion on the post of Senior Teacher Grade-II

and therefore the petitioner is also allowed the same benefits on

the ground of equality. Counsel further pointed out that Mahavir

Prasad was appointed as Craft Teacher vide order dated

17.02.1985, whereas learned Additional Advocate General Basant

Singh Chhaba pointed out that the Mahavir Prasad is continuing in

service with the respondents on the basis of his initial

appointment as Teacher Grade-III (General) made vide order

dated 02.11.1984 by the Office of Panchayat Samiti, Kotputli,

District Jaipur. Since Mahavir Prasad was appointed as Teacher

Grade-III (General) vide order dated 02.11.1984 by the Office of

Panchayat Samiti, Kotputli, District Jaipur, the contention of the

counsel for the petitioner that Mahavir Prasad is continuing in

service and getting benefits on the basis of appointment order

issued on 07.02.1985, is correctly falsified. The petitioner has also

submitted that one Sona Ram Yadav was also appointed as

Teacher Grade-III (Craft) and he has been allowed the promotion

on the post of Senior Teacher Grade-II treating him to be Teacher

Grade-III (General).

16. It is a fact that as per the provisions of the Rules of 1971,

the petitioner was not holding the requisite qualification to be

appointed as Teacher Grade-III (General) i.e. on the date of his

[2024:RJ-JP:12705] (7 of 10) [CW-2038/2000]

initial appointment i.e. on 17.02.1981. Since the petitioner was

holding the qualification for appointment as Teacher Grade-III

(Craft), he was given appointment as Teacher Grade-III (Craft),

and therefore, he can not be allowed the benefits which accrued to

a person who holds the post of Teacher Grade-III (General). The

claim of the petitioner on the basis of parity allowed to Sona Ram

Yadav, is also not sustainable because the same dehors the Rules.

17. In the case of R. Muthukumar and Ors. Vs. The

Chairman and Managing Director, TANGEDCO and Ors. the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-

"A principle, axiomatic in this country's constitutional lore is that there is no negative equality. In other words, if there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people, without legal basis or justification, that benefit cannot multiply, or be relied upon as a principle of parity or equality. In Basawaraj and Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81, this Court rulec that:

It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get the same relief as well. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated.

Other decisions have enunciated or applied this principle (Ref: Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh : (1995) 1 SCC 745, Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana : (2005) 9 SCC 164, K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P. : (2006) 3 SCC 581; Fuljit Kaur v.

State of Punjab : (2010) 11 SCC 455, and Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab : (2014) 15

[2024:RJ-JP:12705] (8 of 10) [CW-2038/2000]

SCC 715). Recently, in The State of Odisha v. Anup Kumar Senapati this Court observed as follows:

R. Muthukumar and Ors. vs. The Chairman and Managing Director, TANGEDCO and Ors. (07.02.2022 - SC) If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a similarly wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim benefits on the basis of the wrong decision."

18. Counsel for the petitioner submits that on the date of

appointment of the petitioners the qualification as per the Rules of

1971 was matriculation with certificate of training and since the

petitioner has also raised an issue that the circular dated

06.08.1984 issued by the Government of Rajasthan provides

equivalency of the certificate hold by the petitioner. Counsel for

the petitioner further referred the judgment of Larger Bench in

case of Ram Chandra Swami & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan &

Anr., 1933 Volume-III WLC Rajasthan Page 741. In the

aforesaid judgment it has been observed as under:-

"Any order made under Note Third of the Schedule of the Rules, quoted in para 13/supra, by the State Government declaring STC (Cutting and Tailoring) or the other similar certificate as equivalent to BSTC cannot be said to be reasonable and in public interest particularly in view of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Andhra Kesri Educational Society v. Director of School Education, AIR 1989 SC 183 and Ramsukh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1990 SC 92. It is very difficult to visualise as to how these STC (Cutting and Tailoring) holders would teach tiny tots in primary schools of

[2024:RJ-JP:12705] (9 of 10) [CW-2038/2000]

the village and strive towards excellence as enjoined upon them under Article 51a(j) of the Constitution when admittedly they have not received any training in teaching. It is not the case of the petitioners that the BSTC or B.Ed. Degree holders are not available. It has been observed in M/s. Kasturilal Lakshmi Reddy vs. The State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1980 SC 1992 para 14, as follows:-

"Where any governmental action fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness and public interest discussed above and is found to be wanting in the quality of reasonableness or lacking in the element of public interest, it would be liable to be struck down as invalid."

It has further been observed in para 15 as under:-

"Where the Government is dealing with the public, whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contracts or granting other forms of largess, the Government cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet will and, like a private individual, deal with any person it pleases, but its action must be in conformity with some standard or norm which is not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. The Government action must not be arbitrary or capricious but must be based on some principle which meets the test of reason and relevance. This rule was enunciated by the Court as a rule of administrative law and it was also validated by the Court as an emanation flowing directly from the doctrine of equality embodied in Article 14."

On these grounds, the letter Annexure P/10 and other similar letters declaring STC (C&T), STC (other Trades, NTC (other Trades) and similar other certificates equivalent to Basic School Training Certificate are null and void."

19. The cited case is of no benefit to petitioner because it

nowhere says that the qualification of trade certificate is equal to

Certificate of training, required for appointment as Teacher

(General).

20. This Court is also conscious of the fact that subsequent to

acquiring the qualifications of Teacher Grade-III (General), the

[2024:RJ-JP:12705] (10 of 10) [CW-2038/2000]

petitioner has been extended the benefit of promotion on the post

of Senior Teacher Grade-II in the year 2003.

21. In view of the discussions above this Court finds no merit in

the contentions of the counsel for the petitioner and therefore this

writ petition is dismissed.