Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 449 (RAJ)

Ramdeo Regar v. State of Rajasthan

2005-02-11

RAJENDRA PRASAD VYAS

body2005
Judgment R.P. Vyas, J.-The present writ petition has been preferred against the letter dated 110.2002 (Annexure-8) issued by the District Education Officer (Secondary) I, Bhilwara, by which, the petitioner has been denied appointment on the post of Physical Education Teacher (for short PET) Grade III as per his merit, despite the fact that he has requisite qualification from the recognised University. 2. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that similarly situated persons, namely Narpat Singh, Durgesh Kumar, Mewalal Gurjar and Rooplal Bhat, who had obtained the requisite qualification from Amravati University, have been given appointment on the post of Physical Education Teacher (for short P.E.T.) Grade III, vide office order dated 20.07.2002 (Annexure-11) passed by the D.E.O. (Secondary) I, Bhilwara, but the case of the petitioner has not been considered for the post of P.E.T. Grade III by the respondent No. 3. 3. Glaring facts giving rise to the instant petition are as follows: 4. The petitioner after passing 10+2 examination, took admission in Bachelor of Physical Education Course (for short B.P. Ed.) in Amravati University in the year 1994 and obtained the degree in the year, 1997. 5. The District Education Officer, Secondary Education-I, Bhilwara - respondent No.3 vide Notification dated 01.09.1998 (Annexure-7) invited applications for the posts of Physical Education Teachers Grade-III. The required qualification for the said post was 10+2+3+ one year Physical Education (B.P.Ed.) Degree/diploma from the recognised University. 6. Pursuant to the Notification dated 01.09.1998 (Annexure-7), the petitioner applied for the said post. He was called for interview and was placed at S. No. 4 in the merit list prepared for Scheduled Caste Candidates. However, no appointment was given to the petitioner. 7. On 13.09.2002, the petitioner submitted a representation (Annexure-4) to the Director, Education Department, Bikaner, for giving him appointment on the post of Physical Education Teacher (Grade III) and a copy of the same endorsed to the D.E.O. (Secondary)-I, Bhilwara. Then the petitioner submitted representations subsequent dated 010.2002 (Annexure-5) and 10.2002 (Annexure-6) to the D.E.O. (Secondary) I, Bhilwara, with reference to his earlier representation dated 13.09.2002, reiterating the same facts as mentioned in the Annexure 4. 8. Then the petitioner submitted representations subsequent dated 010.2002 (Annexure-5) and 10.2002 (Annexure-6) to the D.E.O. (Secondary) I, Bhilwara, with reference to his earlier representation dated 13.09.2002, reiterating the same facts as mentioned in the Annexure 4. 8. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1067/1999 (Ram Deo Regar vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.) praying therein that the respondents may be directed to give the appointment to the petitioner as PET Gr. III. 9. The said S.B.C. Writ Petition No. 1067/99 came to be decided by this Court vide order dated 29.07.1999 in terms of Judgment rendered in S.B.C.W. Petition No. 2332/99 (Bharat Lal Meena vs. The state of Rajasthan & Ors.) decided on 09.07.1999 (Annexure-1). The Court in S.B.C.W. Petition No. 2332/99, while disposing of the writ petition observed as under: ". . . . . . . . . . . . the documents submitted by the petitioner will be duly examined and considered by the statutory authority and, if the documents are found to be genuine and institution is found to be duly recognized; candidature of the petitioner shall be considered by the respondents, preferably within three weeks; provided select list is still alive and the vacancies are available." 10. Pursuant to the directions given by this Court vide Annexure-1, the case of the petitioner was considered and he was informed vide letter dated 19.05.2000 (Annexure-2) that his documents were found to be genuine as well as the institution was duly recognised by the National Council of Teachers Education (for short NCTE), but the candidature of the petitioner was not considered for appointment on the ground that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification of Physical Education Teacher Grade III as per Notification issued by the Department for appointment on the post of P.E.T. Grade III, whereas the case of Bharat Lal Meena was pertaining to recognition of the Institution. The eligibility required for the post of Physical Education Teacher is three years degree course after 10+2 and one year Degree/Diploma of Physical Education Teacher. 11. Being aggrieved against the letter dated 19.05.2000 (Annexure-2), the petitioner preferred contempt Petition No. 49/2000 raising the grievance that the letter dated 19.05.2000 has been issued by the D.E.O. (Secondary) I, Bhilwara, in violation of the order of this Court dated 09.07.1999. 11. Being aggrieved against the letter dated 19.05.2000 (Annexure-2), the petitioner preferred contempt Petition No. 49/2000 raising the grievance that the letter dated 19.05.2000 has been issued by the D.E.O. (Secondary) I, Bhilwara, in violation of the order of this Court dated 09.07.1999. While disposing of the contempt petition on 02.09.2002, the Court observed as under: "Thus, the petition stands disposed of finally with a direction to the respondents that in case the petitioner files a fresh representation ventilating all his grievances putting him in seritaim, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate order after re-examining all the issues and in case his representation is not accepted, they must pass a speaking and reasoned order pointing out as to whether the petitioner did not possesses the requisite qualification or he did not possess the degree from a duly recognised institution or the documents filed by him were not genuine or he did not possess the eligibility of 10+2+3 years degree course and communicate the same to the petitioner. Needless to say that in case the petitioner is aggrieved of the order passed by the respondents, he may have a right to challenge the same before the appropriate forum in an independent proceedings." 12. Pursuant to the directions given by this Court in the Contempt Petition No. 49/2000 vide order dated 49/2000, the petitioner vide Annexure-4 dated 13.09.2002 made a representation and submitted all the documents to the respondent No. 2-the Director, Secondary Education, Bhilwara. Thereafter, he further sent applications to the respondent No. 3-DEO Secondary (I), Bhilwara vide Annexure-5 and 6 respectively, in which he has specifically mentioned that the person having lower merit had been given appointment and the norms have not been followed as per advertisement. 13. The respondent No. 3 pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition on 1067/1999 and Contempt Petition No. 49/2000, on 02.09.2002, rejected the case of the petitioner for giving him appointment on the post of Physical Education Teacher Grade III and informed him vide letter dated 110.2002 (Annexure-8) as under: (i) that the petitioner has acquired the qualification of B.P.E. from Amravati University, which is not recognised from National Council of Teacher Education (NCTE). (ii) that, according to the application of the petitioner, his name finds place at No. 4 in the Seniority List. (ii) that, according to the application of the petitioner, his name finds place at No. 4 in the Seniority List. So the candidate at No. 2 in the Seniority List (marks 94.68%)has been given appointment. Thereafter, no appointment has been given. (iii) that the Seniority List of Physical Education Teacher (Grade III) prepared for the Session 1998-99, in accordance with R.E.S.S. Rules, 1971, has come to an end on 31.03.1999. (iv) that, since the Notification was for the posts likely to be vacant, so the petitioner is not entitled to claim for those posts and all the appointments, except the decision of the Honble High Court, have been given on the basis of the reserved category. 14. In this view of the matter, the D.E.O. Secondary (I), Bhilwara expressed his inability to give appointment to the petitioner in his letter dated 110.2002 (Annexure-8) as mentioned above. 15. Being aggrieved by the letter dated 110.2002 (Annexure-8), the petitioner has preferred the instant petition. 16. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the respondents had found the institute duly recognised by the NCTE from where the petitioner had obtained three years B.P.Ed. Degree as is evident from Annexure-2. But the respondents vide Annexure-8, rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that the institution from which the petitioner had obtained Degree, is not recognised by the NCTE. 17. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the controversy regarding recognition of the institute has already been set at rest by this Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma etc. But the respondents vide Annexure-8, rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that the institution from which the petitioner had obtained Degree, is not recognised by the NCTE. 17. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the controversy regarding recognition of the institute has already been set at rest by this Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma etc. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in RLR 1999(2) page 131.While allowing the bunch of petitions, the Court has categorically observed as under: "Degree obtained in Physical Education of three years course after qualifying examination 10+2 course from a recognised University as recognised by the UGC is a degree and amounts to graduation like any other graduate candidate and further it is to be held that the candidates having the graduation in Physical Education degree need not posses a diploma in Physical Education as they are already in possession of a much higher qualification than the diploma and as such all those candidates who possess the Physical Education degree as aforesaid are entitled to be considered for recruitment to the post of PTI Grade II and this is the only harmonious construction which can be made in the present case till the Government decides to modify its rule by including the qualifications for recruitment in regard to the candidates possessing the B.P.Ed. (3 years course) for the said posts." 18. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the said Judgment passed in S.B.C. Writ petition No. 6286/1996 (Ashok Kumar Sharma vs. State & Ors.) was challenged by the respondents by way of filing a D.B. Civil Special Appeal, which was decided by this Court vide order dated September 13,2000. The Division Bench of this Court, while upholding the Judgment passed by the Learned Single Bench, directed the appellants to consider the cases of all the respondents/petitioners who hold the degree in Physical Education from the respective Universities and consider their applications and give them appointment, if they otherwise satisfy the other qualifications prescribed. The Division Bench further clarified that the controversy raised in the appeals relate to the degree obtained by the respondents in Physical Education and for appointment to the post of Physical Training Instructor Grade II and Grade III only. 19. The Division Bench further clarified that the controversy raised in the appeals relate to the degree obtained by the respondents in Physical Education and for appointment to the post of Physical Training Instructor Grade II and Grade III only. 19. The next contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the similarly situated persons, namely Heeralal Rao, Narpat Singh, Durgesh Kumar, Mevalal Gurjar and Roop Lal Bhat, who have also obtained the B.P.Ed. Degree in the years 1997-98 from the same Institution along with the petitioner and applied in pursuance to the said Notification, in question, for the post of Physical Education Teacher, they have been taken into consideration for the selection on the post of Physical Teacher Grade III and their appointment orders dated 20.11.2001 and 20.07.2002 (Annexures 10 and 11 respectively) have been issued in that regard, whereas the same has been denied to the petitioner. 20. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the case of the petitioner is standing on the same footings as of the cases of the candidates mentioned in Annexures-10 and 11 and having same qualifications and not only that, but also the case of the petitioner is completely covered by the aforesaid decision, but, despite that, his case has not been taken into consideration for appointment on the post of PET Grade III, by the respondent No. 3. 21. The next submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent authorities have raised an objection to the effect that the petitioner is not qualified on the post of Physical Teacher as the petitioner was possessing the qualification of 10+2+3 years degree in B.P.Ed, whereas the minimum qualification for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III is 10+2+3+ one years degree/diploma in Physical Education. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the controversy, in question, has already been set rest in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1067/99 and there was no dispute as to the qualification, as the controversy was already decided in Ashok Kumars case (Supra). 22. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the NCTE came into existence on 01.07.1995, while the petitioner took admission way back in the year 1994 and after completing three years course, he has obtained the degree in the year 1997. 22. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the NCTE came into existence on 01.07.1995, while the petitioner took admission way back in the year 1994 and after completing three years course, he has obtained the degree in the year 1997. Thus, there is not fault of the petitioner as to whether the institute from which he has acquired qualification, is recognised or not as, at the relevant time, there was no requirement of recognition of the Institutes. Therefore, it does not mean that the degree is not recognised. 23. Controverting these submissions, Mrs. Vidhyawati Bora, learned Assistance Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents, submitted that the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification from the recognised University. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the merit list was operative only up to 31.03.1999 and the petitioner has not impleaded the 5 candidates as mentioned in Annexures-10 and 11 respectively as respondents to the instant petition, therefore, in these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to be considered for the post of Physical Teacher Grade III. 24. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 25. It is admitted position on record that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for the post of Physical Education Teacher Grade III on the basis of the degree obtained from the Amravati University. The controversy regarding recognition of the University has already been set at rest vide Annexure-7 issued by the respondent himself . It is further admitted on record that so far as qualification is concerned, the controversy has already been decided by this Court in Ashok Kumars case (Supra) and the same has been affirmed by the Division Bench Judgment of this Court. 26. So far as the validity of the select list is concerned, the same has already expired on 31.03.1999. The petitioner has approached this Court well before the expiry of the aforesaid selection list, so the ground raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents is not sustainable in the eye of the law. 27. 26. So far as the validity of the select list is concerned, the same has already expired on 31.03.1999. The petitioner has approached this Court well before the expiry of the aforesaid selection list, so the ground raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents is not sustainable in the eye of the law. 27. In view of the aforesaid discussions as well as keeping in view the fact that similarly situated persons, as mentioned in Annexure 10 and 11 respectively, have been given appointment on the post of Physical Education Teacher Grade III, I quash and set aside the letter dated 110.20002 (Annexure-8) qua the petitioner, issued by the respondent No. 3 and direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of Teacher Grade-III in the light of Annexures-10 and 11 respectively and issue necessary orders, in that regard, if the vacancy is available, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 28. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant petition stands disposed of .