Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 963 (RAJ)

Banwari Lal Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

2010-05-04

RAGHUVENDRA S.RATHORE

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. - As all these writ petitioners involve common question for consideration as to whether the course of Bachelor of Arts Preparation (BAP) is equivalent to Senior Secondary Course of Board of Secondary Education or not, and as such they are being decided by this common order. 2. The case of Banwari Lai Sharma (2249/2009) is being taken as a lead case for the purpose of factual position in these matters. 3. The respondent-Director, Elementary Education, Government of Rajasthan had issued an advertisement on 31.5.2008 for appointment on the post of Prabodhak under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Service Rules, 2008. As per the advertisement, the eligibility fixed for the candidates was Senior Secondary plus Diploma or certificate in teacher training for two years of BELEQ or Graduate and B.Ed. or equivalent and a minimum requisite experience of continuous teaching for at least five years without any break, in a recognised educational, institution or in any project. 4. The petitioner Banwari Lai Sharma had passed secondary examination and thereafter he did BDP for getting qualification for the purpose of doing graduation course. He was declared passed in B.A. Part-III, Examination (Annex.3). Petitioner did his STC in 2007, which was conducted by the Education Department, Government of Rajasthan for the candidates, who were working as Shiksha Karmi/Para Teachers. The petitioner has been working regularly as Shiksha Karmi for last 16 years in District Dausa (Annex. 1). The petitioner being qualified, as per the advertisement dated 31.5.2008 (Annex. 2), had applied for the post of Prabodhak in District Dausa.Thereafter, the petitioner received a letter for interview, in which he appeared. But the respondent did not consider the candidature of the petitioner for the reason that he had not passed senior secondary. The respondent No. 3 had vide letter dated 20.1.2009 called for guidelines from respondent No. 2 in respect of selection of petitioner wherein it was specifically stated that petitioner and other candidates has appeared in the interview. The name of the petitioner Banwari Lai Sharma was at serial No. 1 in the said letter (Annex. 5). 5. The respondents have contested the writ petition by way of filing reply and has primarily taken the stand that the petitioner did not possess the requisite and prescribed qualification, therefore, his candidature/application was rejected. The name of the petitioner Banwari Lai Sharma was at serial No. 1 in the said letter (Annex. 5). 5. The respondents have contested the writ petition by way of filing reply and has primarily taken the stand that the petitioner did not possess the requisite and prescribed qualification, therefore, his candidature/application was rejected. According to the respondents, two judgments were delivered by the High Court, in the case of Suja Ram (5453/2007) and Smt. Priti Dixit (5951/08) on 3.4.2008 and 7.1.2009 respectively, holding that BAP was not equivalent to senior secondary and also observed that whether BAP or senior secondary are equivalent, is a matter to be 'decided by the State Government'. It is also submitted by the respondents that in view of the observation and directions of the High Court the Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, vide his letter dated 4.5.2009, had instructed that qualification of BAP is not equivalent to senior secondary and has ordered to dispose of the matter accordingly (Annex. R-1). 6. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the students, who wanted to do graduation after secondary, have to qualify/pass BAP and the petitioner had already cleared the said course. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner was not required to pass senior secondary before BAP It is also submitted that State Government had conducted STC course for the candidates like the present petitioners as they had been working as Shiksha Karmi. The petitioner Banwari Lal Sharma had completed his STC, Course in the year 2007. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the advertisement (Annex. 2) itself, the candidates who were senior secondary or graduate were eligible for appointment on the post of Prabodhak. Consequently, the petitioner having the requisite qualification in all respect for being appointed on the post of Prabodhak should have been considered for the same and non-consideration of the candidature of the petitioner, despite of the fact that he possessed the requisite eligibility, is arbitrary and illegal. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has reiterated the stand taken in the reply that the course of BAP is. not equivalent to senior secondary and as such the candidature of the petitioner has rightly not been considered by them. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has reiterated the stand taken in the reply that the course of BAP is. not equivalent to senior secondary and as such the candidature of the petitioner has rightly not been considered by them. It has also been submitted that even the High Court had also held that BAP or senior secondary, is not equivalent. 8. At the outset, it may be noted that recently on 22.2.2010 in the case of Babu Lal Meena and others (1594/09), the High Court of Rajasthan, Principal Seat at Jodhpur had considered the issue, as involved herein and while allowing a bunch of writ petitions held that the course of BAP is equivalent to the course of senior secondary and denial of appointment to the petitioners on this ground was not justified. Consequently, the respondents were directed to consider the case of such petitioners for appointment to the post of Prabodhak and to give them appointments, if otherwise found eligible. It is pertinent to note that in the case of Babulal Meena (supra) learned Coordinate Bench had taken into consideration the case of Suja Ram (5453/07) decided on 3.4.2008.While deciding the issue, the learned Coordinate Bench had held as under : "In view of the above reason that the BAP course being equivalent for obtaining degree of graduation and to the course of BSTC, the BAP course appears to be equivalent to the certificate of Senior Secondary. The RPSC is also recognising BAP course as equivalent to senior secondary while giving appointment to the post of Teacher Grade-III where the basic qualification is Senior Secondary as stated by learned counsel for the petitioners which is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondents, rather say, admitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, therefore, in these matters where the appointments have been cancelled of the petitioner's on the ground of non-equivalent of BAP with senior secondary is concerned, the respondents have failed to justify their action of treating BAP course to be not equal to senior secondary. At this juncture, it will be relevant to observe that in Suja Ram's case, the State did not decide about the equivalence of BAP course with senior secondary as well as there was no material before the bench that two courses were equivalent or treated as equivalent by the State Government itself. At this juncture, it will be relevant to observe that in Suja Ram's case, the State did not decide about the equivalence of BAP course with senior secondary as well as there was no material before the bench that two courses were equivalent or treated as equivalent by the State Government itself. The fact situation in the present cases are entirely different and this Court cannot ignore the fact that the same bench has already entertained the writ petition and issued notice to the respondents even after deciding the case of Suja Ram. The respondents in their reply failed to show any justification for not treating their course of BAP as equivalent with the senior secondary when they themselves have treated it to be equivalent to senior secondary for the purpose of higher studies. Kota Open University is also an University recognised under the UGC and when even a graduate degree by University and when the State itself recognises BAP course for the purpose of grant of another decree treating it to be equivalent to senior secondary, then the equivalence can be determined on the basis of the facts placed on record as well as which are not substantially in dispute." 9. In view of the above, this Court is also of the view that non-consideration of the candidature of the petitioners for the post of Prabodhak on the ground that the BAP course was not equivalent to senior secondary, is not justified. Therefore, the respondents should consider the case of the petitioners for appointments on the post of Prabodhak, in case the petitioners are otherwise eligible. 10. Consequently, these writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment on the post of Prabodhak by considering the BAP course as equivalent to senior secondary. The respondents are also directed to give appointments to the petitioners, if otherwise, found eligible. The said exercise be done within three months from the receipt of the certified copy of this order.There shall be no order as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******