Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 754 (RAJ)

Jayendra Singh Chouhan v. State of Rajasthan

2015-04-03

NIRMALJIT KAUR

body2015
ORDER 1. The petitioner participated in the written examination of Teacher Grade III in pursuance to the advertisement dated 11.08.2013. The petitioner was duly selected but has not been issued appointment letter on the ground that he did not have the requisite qualification on the date of submitting the application form as mentioned in the advertisement. 2. It is contended that as per Rule 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, the petitioner was required to have the requisite qualification before the declaration of result of the written examination and therefore, the condition of eligibility laid down in the said advertisement is contrary to the said Rule. The said condition was challenged by those candidates who were allowed to appear as offline candidates through SB Civil Writ Petition No. 10845/2013 (Suman Charan vs. State of Rajasthan & Others). The said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 03.09.2013 by observing as under: “After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the condition 7(7) of the advertisement dated 11.08.2013 which reads as under:- ^^vH;FkhZ }kjk vkosnu izLrqr djus dh vfUre fnukad dks ‘kS{kf.kd] iz‘kS{kf.kd ,oa jktLFkku v/;kid ik=rk ijh{kk dh vgZrk;sa vftZr dj yh xbZ gksA** 3. I have also perused the relevant proviso to Rule 266 of the Rules of 1996, which reads as under: “Provided that the person who has appeared or is appearing in the B.Ed./B.S.T.C./B.S.E./B.Ed. (Special Education) examination shall be eligible to apply for the post of Primary and Upper Primary School Teachers (General Education/Special Education) but he shall have to submit a proof of having acquired the said educational qualification to the (District Establishment Committee) before the declaration of the result of the competitive examination.” 4. After perusing the above proviso, I am of the firm opinion that all those candidates who have appeared in the B.Ed./B.S.T.C. examination are very much entitled to apply for the posts in question and their right accrued under the said proviso cannot be denied. 5. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed with direction to the State Government to allow all those candidates who have appeared in the B.Ed./B.S.T.C. examination and waiting for their result to fill up application form for the posts in question in pursuance of the advertisement dated 11.08.2013 and all such candidates shall furnish proof before declaration of the result of the said examination. Learned Additional Advocate General is directed to inform the Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur to grant such opportunity to all the candidates who have appeared in the B.Ed./B.S.T.C. Examination. In view of above, all those candidates who appeared in the B.Ed./B.S.T.C. examination are hereby permitted to fill up off-line application form on or before 10.09.2013. It is made clear that for no reason this date shall further be extended and no candidate is required to file writ petition before this Court. 6. However, the present petitioner had applied online. 7. Be that as it may, the condition qua the online and offline cannot be different and applying the same principal as laid down in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 10845/2013, the petitioner too is entitled to the same relief with respect to the cut-off date of the qualification. Admittedly, the petitioner had the requisite qualification before the declaration of the written examination. Inspite of the issue having been settled in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 10845/2013, the petitioner has been denied appointment on the ground that he did not have the requisite qualification before the said date. 8. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that a review has already been filed in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 244/2015 (Trilok Ram & Others vs. State of Rajasthan & Others) in view of the provision of Rule 266 having been amended. 9. It appears that the said amendment was not brought to the notice of this Court at that time when the order was passed in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 244/2015. 10. The fact remains that as on date the said order still stands. 11. Mr. Vikash Choudhary appearing on behalf of Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and prays for time to file reply. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall supply two sets of petition to the learned counsel for the respondents. 13. Put up on 29.04.2015, as prayed. 14. Meanwhile, one post be kept reserved for the petitioner.