Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1535 (RAJ)

Rajendra Singh Shekhawat v. State of Rajasthan

2002-09-04

SUNIL KUMAR GARG

body2002
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 30-1-1997 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to give appointments to the petitioners to the post of Teacher Gr. III. 2. The case of the petitioners as put forward by them in this writ petition is as follows : Case of Petitioner No. 1 Rajendra Singh Shekhawat The petitioner No. 1 Rajendra Singh Shekhawat after doing his graduation obtained his B. Ed. degree from Chitrakut Gramodaya University, Chitrakut, Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as "the University") and copy of the Provisional Certificate of B. Ed. is Annx. 1. The case of the petitioner No. 1 is that the mark-sheet of B. Ed. (Annx. 3) reveals that the result of the petitioner No. 1 was worked out by taking into consideration the marks secured in theory and in the practice of teaching. So far as the University from which the petitioner No. 1 obtained his B. Ed. degree is concerned, it is University established by law and for that letter dated 11-11-1993 (Annx. 5) issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh to the Commissioner, Sagar District, Sagar may be referred to. It was further submitted by the petitioner No. 1 that Certificate Annex. 4 dated 26-10-1996 was issued, by the University, which goes to show that the petitioner No. 1 passed examinations of B. Ed. special (blind) degree course and apart from that, he had also studied papers pertaining to general B. Ed. degree course for the Session 1993-94. So far as the recognition of the degrees of the University in question is concerned, letter Annx. 6 dated 23-11-1991 maybe referred to where it has been clarified by the Government of Rajasthan that it was not necessary to pass specific order for the recognition of the degree obtained from the Universities established by law. The further case of the petitioner No. 1 is that the appointments on the post of Teacher Gr. III have been given to those persons, who possess B. Ed. Special (Blind) degree. The further case of the petitioner No. 1 is that the respondents invited applications for the post of Teacher Gr. The further case of the petitioner No. 1 is that the appointments on the post of Teacher Gr. III have been given to those persons, who possess B. Ed. Special (Blind) degree. The further case of the petitioner No. 1 is that the respondents invited applications for the post of Teacher Gr. III through advertisement No. 2/96 dated 17-1-1996 and in pursuance of that advertisement, he applied for the said post and he was interviewed and thereafter, vide order dated 17-8-1996 (Annx. 7), he was allotted Panchayat Samiti, Shergarh and it was further observed in that letter Annex. 7 that genuineness of the degrees and certificates would be checked by the respondent No. 2 District Establishment Committee and the proceedings for giving appointments would be taken only after verification of the degrees and certificates. The further case of the petitioner No. 1 is that the respondent No. 2 District Establishment Committee made efforts to verify whether the B. Ed. degree of the petitioner No. 1 was genuine one or not and further, it has come to the knowledge of the petitioner No. 1 that the University had confirmed this fact, as the petitioner No. 1 also enquired from the University and the University has confirmed that on receipt of the letter from the respondent No. 2, they have certified that the degree obtained by the petitioner No. 1 is genuine and the University has also issued Certificate Annx. 4 referred to above in favour of the petitioner No. 1. The further case of the petitioner No. 1 to that the respondents have not given him appointment on the post of Teacher Gr. III on the ground that the B. Ed. Special (Blind) degree is not requisite qualification for giving appointment on the post of Teacher Gr. III. Thereafter, the petitioner No. 1 made several representations and copies of some of them are marked as Annx. 8 to Annx. 11, but still he has not been given appointment to the post of Teacher Gr. III. Hence, this writ petition with the prayers as stated above. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and in that reply, the genuineness of the mark-sheet of B.Ed. (Annx. 3) of the petitioner No. 1 has not been disputed, but it was submitted by the respondents that genuineness of the Certificate (Annx. 4) has not been verified and the Certificate Annx. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and in that reply, the genuineness of the mark-sheet of B.Ed. (Annx. 3) of the petitioner No. 1 has not been disputed, but it was submitted by the respondents that genuineness of the Certificate (Annx. 4) has not been verified and the Certificate Annx. 4 does not inspire confidence because it is not known to the respondents whether the person, who has issued the same, was authorised to issue the same or not and furthermore, the appointment to the post of Teacher Gr. III was not given to the petitioner No. 1 because he was trained in teaching blind students whereas in primary schools. there is no blind student and thus, the petitioner No. 1 was not having the requisite qualification for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr. III. Hence, the writ petition be dismissed. A rejoinder was also filed by the petitioner No. 1. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and gone through the materials available on record. 4. The pertinent question for consideration in this writ petition is whether the petitioner No. 1, who stood at serial No. 12 in the merit list as is evident from the order Annx. 7 dated 17-8-1996, is entitled to the appointment of Teacher Gr. III or not ? 5. So far as the genuineness of Annx. 1 Provisional Certificate of B.Ed. and Annx. 3 mark-sheet of B.Ed. pertaining to the petitioner No. 1 is concerned the same has not been disputed by the respondents. But, genuineness of the Certificate Annex. 4 has not been confirmed by the respondents. 6. There is no dispute on the point that the petitioner No. 1 possesses B.Ed. Special (Blind) degree from the University. 7. In my considered opinion, when the petitioner No. 1 has passed the B. Ed. Special (Blind) degree course and the qualification for the post of Teacher Gr. III was that a candidate should have qualification of B.Ed. and furthermore, Annex. 4 Certificate issued by the University reveals that apart from B. Ed. Special (Blind) degree, the petitioner No. 1 has also studied the papers pertaining to the B.Ed. general course, therefore, in these circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner No. 1 was not having a requisite qualification for the post of Teacher Gr. III. and furthermore, Annex. 4 Certificate issued by the University reveals that apart from B. Ed. Special (Blind) degree, the petitioner No. 1 has also studied the papers pertaining to the B.Ed. general course, therefore, in these circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner No. 1 was not having a requisite qualification for the post of Teacher Gr. III. 8. However, the question remains that the respondents have not confirmed the genuineness of the Certificate Annx. 4 but, in the reply, they have simply stated that they have doubt about the genuineness of the Certificate Annx. 4, but no letter has been produced by them which goes to show that they have made any efforts to verify the genuineness of the Certificate Annx. 4. In these circumstances, genuineness of the Certificate Annx. 4 cannot be doubted at this stage subject to the condition that before giving appointment to the petitioner No. 1, the respondents would take an affidavit from the petitioner No. 1 that the Certificate Annx. 4 is a genuine document. 9. A question may arise that period of select list would have expired by now and, therefore, the petitioner No. 1 is not entitled to the relief sought for, but this question has been answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Purshottam v. Chairman, MSEB and ors., 2000(1) SCT 1121 (SC) : ( 1999(6) SCC 49 : 1999 AIR SCW 4747) by observing that duly selected candidates could not be denied appointment on the pretext that panel term had expired and posts had been filled up by some one else. 10. In the present case, since the petitioner No. 1 stood in merit list at serial No. 12 and there was no fault on the part of the petitioner No. 1, therefore, in these circumstances, the petitioner No. 1 is entitled to the appointment for the post of Teacher Gr. III and his writ petition deserves to be allowed.Case of petitioner No. 2 Rajendra Singh Udawat 11. So far as the case of the petitioner No. 2 Rajendra Singh Udawat is concerned his name was not found in the select list, but found in the reserve list and there is a difference between the select list and reserve list and the period of reserve list would have expired by now and. So far as the case of the petitioner No. 2 Rajendra Singh Udawat is concerned his name was not found in the select list, but found in the reserve list and there is a difference between the select list and reserve list and the period of reserve list would have expired by now and. therefore, there is no case so far as the petitioner No. 2 is concerned and thus, his writ petition is liable to be dismissed.For the reasons stated above, the writ petition of the petitioner No. 1 Rajendra Singh Shekhawat is allowed and the respondents are directed to offer appointment to the petitioner No. 1 as Teacher Gr. III in pursuance of the selection aforesaid within a period of two months from today, but before that, the petitioner No. 1 would file an affidavit before the respondents by which he will certify the genuineness of the Certificate Annx. 4. It is however made clear that on his appointment the petitioner No. 1 shall not be entitled for the emoluments of the said post for the past, but, he will be entitled to claim seniority over the persons who were lower in merit but have been offered appointment prior to him.However, the writ petition of the petitioner No. 2 Rajendra Singh Udawat is dismissed.No order as to costs.Order accordingly. *******