Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1281 (RAJ)

Arpit Kumar Pathak v. State of Rajasthan

2018-05-15

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2018
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner by way of filing this writ petition is claiming for the following reliefs :- "(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the petitioner may be permitted to appear in counseling. (ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass an order to keep one post of Teacher Grade II Science subject vacant in favour of the petitioner. (iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (iv) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner. " 2. The brief facts as noticed by this Court is that the petitioner participated in the recruitment process for the post of Senior Teacher Grade-II initiated vide advertisement dated 13.7.2016, which was amended vide corrigendum dated 02.2.2018 whereby the posts of Science Teachers were increased from 248 to 306. 3. Counsel for the petitioner states that as the petitioner was falling in merit, thus, he ought to have been given appointment and has relied upon of Division Bench judgment of this Court in Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Vs. Smt. Manju Chhaba & Ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal Writ No. 127/2016, decided on 04.4.2016) 4. Counsel for the respondent first of all drew attention of Court towards condition of eligibility laid in advertisement, which quoted as under :- QUOTE (page 20 Hindi red line) 5. Counsel for the respondent argued that the judgment of RPSC Vs. Smt. Manju Chhaba (supra) is not applicable in the present case, as in that case preliminary examinations were conducted on 21.2.2014 to 25.2.2014 and before the last examination of 25.2.2014 was conducted by the respondents, the petitioner had admittedly secured the qualification on 22.2.2014. Counsel for the respondent further states that it is the admitted position in the present case that the examination had taken place on 01.5.2017 and the petitioner acquired his qualification of B.Ed on 06.10.2017 i.e. subsequent to the date of examination. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing record, this Court finds that admittedly the petitioner has not acquired the requisite qualification for being appointed on the post of Senior Teacher Grade-II in Science Subject pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.7.2016. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing record, this Court finds that admittedly the petitioner has not acquired the requisite qualification for being appointed on the post of Senior Teacher Grade-II in Science Subject pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.7.2016. This Court further finds that the examination happened on 01.5.2017, whereas the qualification of B.Ed was acquired by the petitioner only on 06.10.2017. Further, the precedent law cited by counsel for the petitioner RPSC Vs. Smt. Manju Chhaba (supra) is not applicable in the present case because Smt. Manju Chhaba had acquired the qualification on 22.2.2014, whereas the examination was held on 21.2.2014 to 25.2.2014. Hence, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition is dismissed.