Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2007 (RAJ)

Daulat Ram Tiwari v. State of Rajasthan

2005-08-02

MANAK MOHTA

body2005
Judgment 1. This special appeal is directed against the Judgment of learned Single Judge dated 15.09.2003 dismissing the writ petition. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that in response to the advertisement issued by Chief-Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh dated 30.10.1999 for appointment on the post of Primary School Teachers. As per the advertisement, the minimum qualification for appointment on the post of Primary Teacher was Senior Secondary School in Vocational subject but later on by way of corrigendum, applications were also invited from the candidates who had passed Senior Secondary School in Vocational Course. Though the appellant had passed the Bridge Course, even then he was denied appointment on the ground that he had passed the Bridge Course in third attempt after the cut-off date. 3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition in view of the fact the appellant passed the Bridge Course in third attempt after the cut-off date. 4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational) has been held to be equivalent to Senior Secondary (Academic) by the Honble Supreme Court of India in Sunita Sharma & Ors. vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., JT 2001 (10) SC 178. He has also filed an additional affidavit wherein the appellant has stated that some of the candidates who have passed the Bridge Course in third attempt after the cut-off date have been given appointment. He has referred to the name of one Saroj Tiwari D/o. Satya Narayan Tiwari and Kumari Gayatri Pareek D/o. Banshi Lal Pareek. 5. It is submitted by the learned Deputy Government Advocate that the case of the appellant is not at par with the case of Saroj Tiwari and Kumari Gayatri Pareek as they have been given appointment pursuant to the directions of this Court. 6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties; we are of the view that the instant special appeal deserves to be allowed. 7. It is not in dispute that the appellant stood higher in merit in comparison to Saroj Tiwari and Kumari Gayatri Pareek. It is also not in dispute that they have also passed the Bridge Course in third attempt after the cut-off date. Thus, the case of the appellant is not distinguishable from the case of Saroj Tiwari and Kumari Gayatri Pareek. Thus, apparently it is a case of hostile discrimination. It is also not in dispute that they have also passed the Bridge Course in third attempt after the cut-off date. Thus, the case of the appellant is not distinguishable from the case of Saroj Tiwari and Kumari Gayatri Pareek. Thus, apparently it is a case of hostile discrimination. 8. Consequently, the special appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 15.09.2003 is set-aside. The respondents are directed to give appointment to the appellant on the post of Primary School Teacher. He will not be entitled to arrears of salary. However, he will be entitled to fixation in pay and seniority notionally.