Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1787 (RAJ)

Hans Raj Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

2011-08-24

DALIP SINGH, S.S.KOTHARI

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. The writ petition has been filed by the appellant challenging inter-alia the appointment of the respondent No. 4 Alok Sharma be quashed as he does not possess the qualifications of having passed the NET Examination or the SLET Examination, as prescribed under the UGC Norms because for the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit College, the essential qualifications are "as laid down by the University of Rajasthan from time to time". The post in question is that of Lecturer in Sanskrit Education in the subject of "Jyotish (Ganit). 2. From the side of the respondent, it was contended in the reply as well as before the learned Single Judge that the post in question falls within the purview of Rajasthan Sanskrit Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 and the aforesaid post of Lecturer being a subordinate post, the qualifications as prescribed by the UGC do not apply. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant, on the other hand, has placed reliance upon the judgment of this court in the case of Kalicharan Bhattacharya v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1991 (1) WLC (Raj.) 46 wherein at para 35 the question as to whether the post of Lecturer of Sanskrit College, referred to in the Schedule to the Rajasthan Sanskrit Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 is a post in the subordinate service or a State service and taking into consideration the fact that the post of Lecturer is one in the Sanskrit College which is also governed by the Rajasthan Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1986 wherein the term "College" has been defined as a degree or post graduate College, the post enumerated in the Rules of 1978 notwithstanding the use of the term "subordinate service" is in fact one of the State service. It was also held that "duties and responsibilities" of the Lecturers of Sanskrit College is to prepare scholars having knowledge equivalent to B.A., M.A., Ph.D. and D. Litt. of the University. Thus, the responsibility is the same and mode of requirement does not in any way effect the nature of the duties and responsibilities of the teaching staff of the Sanskrit Colleges. 4. Accordingly, it was held by this court in the case of Kalicharan's case (supra) that the Lecturer of Sanskrit Colleges do not stand on any lesser footing than the Lecturer of other Colleges governed by the Rules of 1986. 5. 4. Accordingly, it was held by this court in the case of Kalicharan's case (supra) that the Lecturer of Sanskrit Colleges do not stand on any lesser footing than the Lecturer of other Colleges governed by the Rules of 1986. 5. This judgment in Kalicharan's case (supra) was challenged by the State in appeal before the Division Bench and when the matter came up before the court on 19.09.1994, the learned Advocate General stated before the court that the Government has decided to accept the decision of the learned Single Judge, referred to here in above. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon other decisions which we may not record here in our order on the same point. 7. The sum and substance, therefore, prima facie appears to be that the post enumerated in the Schedule in the Rules of 1978 of Lecturer of Acharya/Shastri College for which the selections were held and for which the petitioner-appellant as well as the respondent No. 4 applied is that of Lecturers of a College for which post the qualification is "as laid down by the University of Rajasthan from time to time". It was also submitted that the appointment of the respondent No. 4 is also on the post of Lecturer in the College at Manoharpur which is affiliated to the University requiring compliance of the UGC Norms for appointment of teaching staff. 8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that since the qualifications which have been prescribed are those as applicable to the Teachers of the University and for the University Teachers the norms prescribed by the UGC with regard to appointment of Teachers are applicable and the qualification of NET/SLET with other qualifications are essential and the respondent No. 4 does not possess the same. 9. 9. From the order of the learned Single Judge, we find that the learned Single Judge has not considered the matter in the light of the decision of this court in Kalicharan's case (supra) as the said decision and other decisions of this court were not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge nor was the stand of the Government taken in the order dated 19.09.1994 before the Division Bench brought to the notice of the court at the time of hearing of the present writ petition as this goes to the root of the matter as to whether the post of Lecturer of Shastri classes in Sanskrit College is a post of Lecturer in College Education to which the qualifications of UGC are applicable notwithstanding the fact that the said post is enumerated in the Rajasthan Sanskrit Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1978. 10. We are of the opinion that the points raised based upon Kalicharan's case (supra) require consideration afresh. 11. Accordingly, we would set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 18.05.2011 and remand the matter to the learned Single Judge for deciding the writ petition afresh after affording an opportunity of being heard to all the parties and taking into account the decision in Kalicharan's case (supra) as well as other judgments which were cited before us including that of Rajendra Prasad Mishra which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 12. This appeal accordingly stands allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Single Judge on 12.09.2011. The Registry is directed to list S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 5700/2005 before the learned Single Judge for decision afresh.Appeal allowed - Case Remanded. *******