Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt.Poonam Kumari vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. ... on 27 March, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:16274]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11581/2017
Smt. Poonam Kumari W/o Late Sh. Balvir Singh, D/o Jaipal
Singh, Resident Of Village Bhuwadi, Post Bhuwadi, Tehsil
Rajgarh, District Churu.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajathan Through The Principal Secretary,
Elementary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.P. Trivedi.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Soni for
Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
27/03/2025
1. Petitioner herein, inter alia, seeks issuance of appropriate
writ, order and/or direction commanding the respondents to grant
her appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III pursuant to
advertisement dated 06.07.2016 (Annex.-4).
2. Brief facts first. In accordance with the Rajasthan Panchayati
Raj Act, 1994, and the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, the
respondents issued an advertisement on 06.07.2016 inviting
online applications for Teacher Grade-III positions in 31 districts of
the non-TSP area. The petitioner, eligible under the widow
category, applied for the post.
2.1 After the examination was conducted, the petitioner
performed well and appeared in the provisional selection list dated
27.05.2017. The respondents later issued a press note on
08.06.2017, confirming the selection of candidates and directing
them to undergo document verification. The petitioner was listed
[2025:RJ-JD:16274] (2 of 6) [CW-11581/2017]
in the selection list under S.No. 3661, and was allocated to the
Bikaner district for verification.
2.2 Subsequently, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Zila
Parishad, Bikaner, issued a notification on 16.06.2017, instructing
the selected candidates to appear for document verification on
22.06.2017. The petitioner attended on the specified date, but her
documents were not verified, as her name was reportedly missing
from the list available at the Zila Parishad office.
2.3 Despite presenting a copy of the list and submitting a
representation on the same day requesting verification, the
petitioner's documents were not processed. Thereafter, a
notification was issued clarifying that no further document
verification would be allowed after 22.06.2017. Aggrieved, the
petitioner approached this Court by filing the instant petition.
3. To oppose the petition, relevant stand taken by the
respondents in their reply is as under:-
"8. That the contents of para 9 of the writ petition are not admitted,
hence denied. In this regard it is submitted that 5 percent relaxation
already has been taken by the petitioner at the time of admission in
BSTC. It is also pertinent to mention here that the controversy of
regarding the relaxation in widow category is adjudicated before
the Division Bench and observations stayed was until final disposal
the case of State of Raj. & Ors. v/s Raj Rani DBSAW 1022/2013.
9. That the contents of para 10 of the writ petition are not admitted
in the manner they are averred, hence denied. In this regard it is
submitted that since the petitioner has already availed the benefit
of relaxation while taking admission in BSTC, therefore, his
representation not considered as Ger was the directions passed by
the Hon'ble court in case supra, wherein, the relaxation provided
for widow category/reserved category has been stayed and also
observed that the entire selection process shall remain subject to
the final outcome of the appeal."
4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions
and perused the case file.
[2025:RJ-JD:16274] (3 of 6) [CW-11581/2017]
5. At the outset, it transpires that the controversy qua the
status of widow category was subject matter of adjudication
before Division Bench of this Court in case titled Bharti Upadhyay
Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: D.B Spl. Appl. Writ No.1122/2017
decided on 10.08.2018, which held as under :-
"For proper adjudication of the case, we need to refer to the
Notification dated 29.07.2011 with respect to the reservation policy.
The same reads as under :-
"(ii) Reservation Policy :
Relaxation up to 5% in the qualifying marks shall be
allowed to the candidates belonging to the reserved
categories such as SC/ST/OBC/PH."
A perusal of the above shows that 5% relaxation is granted to
the reserved categories. The language of the provisions for
relaxation as reproduced above provides relaxation to the
candidates belonging to the reserved categories such as
S.C/S.T./O.B.C./P.H. The words 'such as' indicate that what follows
thereafter are only illustrative and not exhaustive, as held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Royal Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another etc reported in AIR 1994
Supreme Court 666. Thus, the categories S.C./S.T./O.B.C./ P.H. are
illustrative and mentioned for 'example' only. Whereas, relaxation
requires to be given to the candidates "belonging to the reserved
categories" and 'widow category' is a reserved category. The
reservation policy as per the Notification dated 29.07.2011 allows
relaxation upto 5% in the qualifying marks to the reserved
categories. Admittedly, the widow category is also a reserved
category and therefore, cannot be left out of such categories.
There is another way to look at the controversy in hand. The
appellant was granted admission in the B.S.T.C. Course as per her
marks in the Senior Secondary Examination. She completed her
Basic School Teachers Course, which is a requisite qualification for
appointment to the post in question. Thus, to deny the appointment
to the appellant at this stage on the ground that she was having less
than 45% marks in the Senior Secondary Examination is absolutely
unjustified and unfair. The controversy with respect to the minimum
qualifying marks arose before this Court in the case of Sushil
Sompura and others Vs. State and others (D.B. Civil Writ Petition
No. 3964/2011) decided on 20.05.2011. In the said case, learned
counsel for the N.C.T.E. made a statement that since the
qualifications were prescribed by the N.C.T.E. denovo for the first
time vide Notification dated 27.09.2007 and 31.08.2009, the
N.C.T.E. shall not insist for having 45% or 50% marks, as the case
may be, in qualifying examination for B.Ed., B.El.Ed. etc. courses in
case, the admission has been taken by the candidates in any of these
courses prior to the Notification dated 27.09.2007 and 31.08.2009.
The relevant part of the judgment rendered in the case of Sushil
Sompura (supra) reads as under :-
"It has been further stated by the learned counsel for the
NCTE that for the first time, de-novo qualifications were
[2025:RJ-JD:16274] (4 of 6) [CW-11581/2017]
prescribed by the NCTE vide Notification dated
27.09.2007 and further, qualifications were prescribed
vide Notification dated 31.8.2009 and in case admission
has been taken by the incumbents in any of the courses of
B.Ed. B.El.Ed. etc. as mentioned in para-1 of the
Notification dated 23.08.2010 prior to aforesaid dates,
they shall not insist for having 45% or 50% marks, as the
case may be, in qualifying examination for aforesaid
courses. Thus, respondents have to allow aforesaid
incumbents in TET examination, 2011."
In the present case, the appellant has completed her Senior
Secondary Examination from the Board of Secondary Education,
Rajasthan with 42.31% marks on 26.05.2007 i.e. prior to even
earlier Notification dated 27.09.2007. Thus, the appeal deserves to
be allowed even on this ground at least qua the present appellant.
In fact, the similar situation arose before the Apex Court in
the case of Neeraj Kumar Rai and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
reported in AIR 2017 Supreme Court 3545. The Apex Court while
considering the judgment rendered in the case of Sushil Sompura
(supra) held :
"However, even assuming for the sake of argument that
the above decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court
does not help the case of the petitioners, yet this Court is
of a considered view, as it has already been discussed in
the preceding paragraphs, that such a restriction (of
having minimum percentage in graduation) is both
unreasonable, unjust and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. Therefore, this Court declares such
condition of asking a minimum percentage of marks in
graduation from those candidates who are B.Ed.
qualified in NCTE notification dated 23.8.2010 and
subsequent State Government Order dated 29.4.2011 as
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Further this Court directs the respondents to permit the
petitioners to appear in TET examination treating them
to be qualified under Clause 3 of the notification dated
23.8.2010 and State Government Order dated 29.4.2011.
In fact, the Apex Court went on to record the statement of
Additional Solicitor General appearing for the N.C.T.E. that the
N.C.T.E. had agreed to accept the judgment rendered by the
Rajasthan High Court in the case of Sushil Sompura (supra), which
reads as under :-
"6. It is submitted that similarly placed candidates
approached the Rajasthan High Court by way of D.B.
Civil Writ Petition No. 3964 of 2011 etc. titled "Sushil
Sompura and ors. Vs. State (Education) and ors.". The
Division Bench of the High Court in its judgment dated
20th May, 2011 upheld their stand.
.... xxx .....
8. Mr. AS Nadkarni, learned Additional Solicitor
General, appearing for the NCTE fairly stated that the
appellants may be treated at par with those covered by
the Rajasthan and Uttarakhand High Courts judgments
which have been accepted by the NCTE."
[2025:RJ-JD:16274] (5 of 6) [CW-11581/2017]
Thus, in view of the above discussion, we find that there is
nothing to distinguish the case of the appellant from that of Sushil
Sompura (supra) wherein a statement was given by the learned
counsel for the N.C.T.E. that they shall not insist upon 45% or 50%
marks, as the case may be, in case, they had done their senior
secondary prior to the Notification dated 27.09.2007 and
31.08.2009. The relaxation upto 5% in the qualifying examination of
Senior Secondary for appointment has to relate and different
percentage of marks cannot be laid down for admission to the
requisite course of B.S.T.C. and different for appointment to the post
of Teacher, for which B.S.T.C. Course is necessary. Since the
relaxation is permissible by the N.C.T.E. for admission in various
Teachers Education Courses, the same relaxation has to be given
for appointment in a job requiring the said certificate of a Teachers
Education Course. In case, the Senior Secondary Certificate of the
appellant with 42.31% marks is rejected for appointment to the post
of Teacher, the very course of B.S.T.C., in which she was granted
admission on the basis of the same Senior Secondary Certificate
would be rendered a mere piece of paper. It would be highly
discriminatory, unfair and unjust.
Accordingly, the present special appeal is allowed. The Order
dated 22.11.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside.
We direct the respondents to consider the case of the appellant for
appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III after treating her as
having obtained the requisite qualifying marks in the Senior
Secondary Examination in case, she is otherwise eligible. The
needful be done within one month of the receipt of certified copy of
this order."
6. The aforesaid view has attained finality, as the same is being
implemented by the State, though it is not clear whether any
further recourse was taken to challenge the same before the
Supreme Court.
7. Be that as it may, petitioner's case being parameteria to the
one in Division Bench i.e. Bharti Upadhyay Vs. State of Rajasthan
& Ors.: D.B. Spl. Appeal (W) No.1122/2017, decided on
10.08.2018, I see no reason why she should not be accorded the
benefit of the outcome of Division Bench judgment.
8. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. The respondents
are directed to process the case of the petitioner in accordance
with law within a period of 30 days from the date petitioner
approaches the competent authority of the respondents with a
web print copy of the instant order, by according all benefits to the
[2025:RJ-JD:16274] (6 of 6) [CW-11581/2017]
her, subject of course to the other eligible conditions being meted
out by the petitioner.
9. As regards the vacancy, it transpires that vide an interim
order dated 14.12.2017, the respondents were directed to keep
one post of Teacher Grade- III vacant.
10. Needless to say, petitioner shall be entitled to all notional
benefits along with seniority, but no pecuniary benefits on the
principle of 'No Work' 'No pay'.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
59-DhananjayS/Rmathur/-
Whether fit for reporting: Yes / No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
