Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1104 (RAJ)

Pushplata Jangir v. State of Rajasthan

2016-08-01

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2016
ORDER : SANDEEP MEHTA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record. 2. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court for assailing the order dated 18.8.2010 (Annex.8) and the order dated 21.2.2014 (Annex.14) and to direct the respondent authorities to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Prabodhak while considering her caste certificate issued in her father's name in pursuance of the recruitment notification of the year 2008. 3. The respondent Education department published an advertisement dated 31.5.2008 for filling up the posts of Prabodhaks. The petitioner who claims to be duly qualified with B.A. and B.Ed. degrees, applied for selection in pursuance of the said advertisement against the O.B.C. Female category. One of the conditions of the recruitment notification was that the concerned candidate should be having 5 years continuous teaching experience in any recognised educational institution or project. It was further required that the experience certificate should be signed by the concerned District Education Officer. Along with her application form, the petitioner submitted the experience certificate issued to her by the Headmaster of the Rajasthan Public Secondary School, Padihara (Churu) certifying that she had worked from 1.8.2001 to 20.6.2008 and that her teaching experience was of 6 years 10 months. The certificate was also countersigned by the District Education Officer. The respondents rejected the petitioner's application form by order Annex.8 dated 18.8.2010 on the following grounds :- (1) The petitioner was not having 5 years teaching experience after completing B.Ed. ; and (2) The name of the petitioner's father was not reflected in the caste certificate. 4. Being aggrieved by this action of the respondents, the petitioner approached this Court by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7767/2011 which was decided on 6.12.2013 directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation as per law after giving her an opportunity of hearing. In furtherance of such direction, the petitioner submitted a representation which was rejected on 21.2.2014 by order Annex.14 assigning the very same reasons which were recorded in the order Annex.8 dated 18.8.2010. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition. 5. In furtherance of such direction, the petitioner submitted a representation which was rejected on 21.2.2014 by order Annex.14 assigning the very same reasons which were recorded in the order Annex.8 dated 18.8.2010. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition. 5. The respondents have filed a reply to the writ petition wherein, the impugned orders are attempted to be justified on the ground that the teaching experience was not gained by the petitioner after acquiring the qualification of B.Ed. She acquired the said qualification in the year 2004 and thus, she could not have gained 5 years continuous teaching experience required under the Rules of 2008. The decision of the authorities in not considering the petitioner to be of O.B.C. category on the ground that the caste certificate was issued in the name of her husband, is also attempted to be defended. 6. The petitioner has raised a specific pleading that she was already having a caste certificate way back in the year 2006 by the concerned Tehsildar issued in the name of her father Mal Chand Jangid. She submitted such caste certificate to the authorities along with her representation but the authorities unjustly did not take cognizance thereof. Mr. Saharan, learned counsel for the petitioner, while relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Vishnu Kanwar & 157 ors. v. State of Raj. & Ors. reported in 2009 WLC (Raj.) UC 186, urges that the period of training and sanctioned leave are to be counted towards service while calculating teaching experience of 5 years required under the Rules of 2008. He also urges that there is no requirement in the Rules that the teaching experience should have been gained after completing B.Ed. He further submits that the petitioner did her B.Ed. through a correspondence course and was continuously serving in the school at Padihara as is evident from the certificate issued by the Headmaster of the school duly verified by the District Education Officer concerned and, therefore, there was no occasion for the authorities to have discarded the petitioner's experience certificate. He further relies on the judgment dated 1.2.2010 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in a bunch of appeals led by D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 142/2009 (Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer. He further relies on the judgment dated 1.2.2010 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in a bunch of appeals led by D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 142/2009 (Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer. v. Rekha Soni & Anr.) and contends that the respondents could not have denied the petitioner's consideration under the O.B.C. category only for the reason that the caste certificate was issued to her in the name of husband. He further urges that the petitioner had already submitted the caste certificate issued in the name of her father to the respondents which they illegally ignored from consideration. He thus, prays that the writ petition deserves to be accepted and the respondents be directed to appoint the petitioner as Prabodhak in the questioned recruitment process. 7. Per contra, Mrs. R.R. Kanwar, learned Govt. counsel appearing for the respondents, vehemently opposes the submissions raised by the petitioner's counsel. On the issue of the experience certificate, she candidly conceded that there is no provision in the Rules whereby, the aspirant for appointment as a Prabodhak can be required to gain the experience after acquiring the B.Ed. Degree. Thus, as regards the reasoning No. 1 adopted by the authorities in the orders Annex.8 and Annex.14 for rejecting the petitioner's candidature, she candidly conceded that the decision taken by the authorities in this regard is erroneous. However, as per her, since the petitioner was not having an OBC certificate issued in the name of her father, the caste certificate issued in her husband's name could not be used by her to take advantage of OBC reservation. Thus, she urged that the writ petition deserves to be rejected. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and perused the material available on record as well as the judgments cited at the Bar. 9. The respondents have not disputed the genuineness of the experience certificate Annex.4 issued to the petitioner by the concerned headmaster and duly verified by the District Education Officer, Churu. There is no requirement either under the Rules of 2008 or in the recruitment notification that the experience of 5 years required for selection as Prabodhak should have been gained by the aspirant after acquiring the B.Ed. degree. Thus, the reasoning set out in the orders Annex.8 and Annex.14 for rejecting the petitioner's representation that the experience of 5 years was not gained after acquiring the B.Ed. degree. Thus, the reasoning set out in the orders Annex.8 and Annex.14 for rejecting the petitioner's representation that the experience of 5 years was not gained after acquiring the B.Ed. degree is totally fictional and has no sanction of law. There being no such requirement either in the Rules or the recruitment notification that the experience should have been gained after acquiring the B.Ed. Certificate, the authorities could not have rejected the petitioner's application on this ground. 10. Now coming to the controversy of the petitioner's caste certificate and her right to be considered in the OBC female category. The petitioner along with her writ petition has filed a caste certificate Annex.5 dated 26.11.2006 issued by the Tehsildar, Sujangarh in the name of the petitioner's father. The genuineness of the said caste certificate is not disputed by the respondents. Though it is correct that while submitting the application form, the petitioner filed the caste certificate issued in the name of her husband but thereafter along with her representation, the caste certificate Annex.5 issued in her father's name was also submitted to the authorities. Thus, the concerned authority being the District Education Officer, Churu was totally unjustified in observing while passing the orders Annex.8 and Annex.14 that the petitioner had not filed the caste certificate issued in the name of her father. Otherwise also, the controversy in this regard has now been set at rest by this Court in large number of judgments including the Division Bench judgment in Rekha Soni's case (supra) laying down that the benefit of OBC reservation has to be extended to a female candidate even if the caste certificate is issued in her husband's name. The petitioner's case stands on a better footing because she holds the caste certificate issued in her father's name as well. As a consequence, the action of the respondents in rejecting the petitioner's candidature for appointment as Prabodhak in the questioned recruitment process is totally illegal, arbitrary and perverse. 11. As an upshot of the above discussion, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to afford appointment to the petitioner on the post of Prabodhak in the OBC female category in pursuance of the recruitment notification dated 31.5.2008 if she stands in merit. 11. As an upshot of the above discussion, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to afford appointment to the petitioner on the post of Prabodhak in the OBC female category in pursuance of the recruitment notification dated 31.5.2008 if she stands in merit. The appointment of the petitioner shall relate back to the date, appointments were accorded to other persons as a consequence of process of selection in question. The seniority and all other benefits including fixation of pay (notional) of the petitioner in the event of grant of appointment shall be reckoned from the date appointments were given to other persons selected through same process. However, she shall not be entitled for actual payment of wages for this period. The respondents shall make the compliance of the directions given above within a period of three months from today. 12. No order as to costs.