Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2119 (RAJ)

Ashish Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

2017-10-03

DINESH MEHTA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. By way of the present writ petition, petitioner has laid challenge to rejection of his candidature by the respondents for appointment on the post of Teachers' Grade - III, Level - I inter-alia on the ground that the petitioner had obtained Basic School Teacher Certificate (BSTC) subsequent to clearing Rajasthan Teachers' Eligibility Test (RTET). 2. Facts necessary for adjudication of the present case are that the petitioner applied for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade - III, Level - I pursuant to the advertisement dated 06.07.2016 issued by the respondents. The petitioner was declared successful and was called for document verification. During the document verification his candidature has been rejected by the respondents inter-alia observing that the petitioner completed his Basic School Teacher Certificate (BSTC) Course on 08.01.2013, whereas he had cleared Rajasthan Teachers' Eligibility Test (RTET) on 28.08.2011. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the petitioner's rejection contended that the same is ex-facie illegal and against the condition of the advertisement itself. It will not be out of place to reproduce the reason ascribed for holding the petitioner ineligible :- 97 5963 710047515 Ashish Kumar Sharma [ksy izek.k i= dh ekU;rk lca/kh tkap dh tkosaA vkjVsV 28-08-2011 dk gS rFkk ,lVhlh dk ifj.kke 08-01-2013 dks tkjh gqvk gSA [kys izfr;ksfxrk esa fdl Lrj ls Hkkx fy;k mYys[k ugha gSA 4. Learned counsel invited attention of this Court towards Clause No.6.8 of the advertisement, which reads as under :- ^^6-8 vH;FkhZ }kjk vkosnu izLrqr djus dh vfUre fnukad rd lHkh U;wure ;ksX;rk,a ¼’kS{kf.kd] iz’kS{kf.kd ,oa jktLFkku v/;kid ik=rk ijh{kk½ vftZr djuk vfuok;Z gSAa** 5. Mr. Learned counsel invited attention of this Court towards Clause No.6.8 of the advertisement, which reads as under :- ^^6-8 vH;FkhZ }kjk vkosnu izLrqr djus dh vfUre fnukad rd lHkh U;wure ;ksX;rk,a ¼’kS{kf.kd] iz’kS{kf.kd ,oa jktLFkku v/;kid ik=rk ijh{kk½ vftZr djuk vfuok;Z gSAa** 5. Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention of this Court towards the requisite eligibility criteria for Rajasthan Teachers' Eligibility Test, which reads thus :- ^^’kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk,a% f’k{kk ds vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e dk mi Hkkx ¼1½ ds 23oas Hkkx ds vUrxZr fu’kqYd ,oa vfuok;Z f’k{kk vf/kfu;e 2009 ds vUrxZr jk”Vªh; v/;kid f’k{kk ifj”kn~ dks vf/klpwuk fnukad 23 vxLr 2010 ekin.Mkuqlkj jktLFkku v/;kid ik=rk ijh{kk 2011 esa lfEefyr gksus gsrq ;ksX;rk,a ,oa U;wure vad izfr'kr fofHkUu oxksZa ds fy, fuEukuqlkj gksxsa %& 1- U;uwre ;ksX;rk & Lrj & izFke ¼d{kk 1&5) ¼d½ U;uwre 50 izfr'kr vdksa ds lkFk mPprj ek/;fed ¼;k blds led{k½ ,oa izkjafHkd f’k{kk ‘kkL= esa f}o”khZ; fMIyksek ¼ftl uke ls Hkh tkuk tkrk gks½A ;k U;uwre 45 izfr’kr vdaks ds lkFk mPprj ek/;fed 1@4 ;k blds led{k 1@2 ,oa izkjafHkd f’k{kk ‘kkL= esa f}o”khZ; fMIyksek ¼ftl uke ls Hkh tkuk tkrk gks½] tks jk”Vªh; v/;kid f’k{kk ifj”kn~ 1@4 ekU;rk ekud vkSj fof/k 1@2 fofu;e 2002 ds vuqlkj izkIr fd;k x;k gksA ;k U;uwre 50 izfr'kr vadksa ds lkFk mPprj ek/;fed ¼;k blds led{k½ ,oa 4 o”khZ; izkjafHkd f’k{kk ‘kkL= Lukrd ¼ch-,y-,M½ ;k U;uwre 50 izfr'kr vadksa ds lkFk mPprj ek/;fed 1@4 ;k blds led{k 1@2 ,oa f’k{kk ‘kkL= esa f}o”khZ; fMIyksek ¼fo’ks”k f’k{kk½ ;k ,sls vH;kFkhZ ftudk mijksDr ikB~;Øe esa izos'k gks pqdk gS vFkkZr~ tks vH;kFkhZ bu ikB~;Øekas esa v/;ujr gSa os Hkh vkonsu dj ldrs gSaA** 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter invited attention of this Court towards the circular dated 23.03.2011 issued by the State Government whereby it has been clarified that the candidates who have got themselves enrolled for Rajasthan Teachers' Eligibility Test (RTET) shall be eligible for appointment in wake of the guidelines issued by the NCTE on 11.02.2011. 7. Mr. Sunil Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents supported the stand of the State and submitted that the petitioner's candidature has been rightly rejected inasmuch as the persons having cleared Rajasthan Teachers' Eligibility Test (RTET) prior to completion of the Basic School Teacher Certificate Course (BSTC) cannot be said to be fully eligible. 7. Mr. Sunil Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents supported the stand of the State and submitted that the petitioner's candidature has been rightly rejected inasmuch as the persons having cleared Rajasthan Teachers' Eligibility Test (RTET) prior to completion of the Basic School Teacher Certificate Course (BSTC) cannot be said to be fully eligible. According to him completion of Rajasthan Teachers' Eligibility Test (RTET) before obtaining the Basic School Teacher Certificate (BSTC) is like clearing Graduation before the Senior Secondary. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the stand of the respondents is not only illegal but also contrary to the condition of the advertisement and circular dated 23.03.2011 issued by the State Government. 9. A perusal of the condition No.6.8 of the advertisement, the eligibility condition of RTET examination and so also the circular dated 23.03.2011 issued by the State Government leaves no room for ambiguity that a person can very well clear Rajasthan Teachers' Eligibility Test (RTET) before completion of his/his Basic School Teacher Certificate (BSTC) Course. 10. In view of the above, rejection of petitioner's candidature (Annex.12) is illegal, for which it is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to give suitable appointment to the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from today. 11. The petition stands allowed.