Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2113 (RAJ)

Renu Joshi v. State of Rajasthan

2018-10-23

ARUN BHANSALI

body2018
JUDGMENT ARUN BHANSALI, J. 1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking to question the order dated 13.7.2018 (Annex.18), whereby, based on the report submitted by the Committee, the petitioners have been held ineligible for grant of appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.III (Level-II) English, further directions have been sought to grant appointment to the petitioners on the post of Teacher Gr.III (Level-II) English pursuant to the advertisement dated 11.9.2017. 2. It is, inter alia, indicated in the writ petitions that the petitioners applied for the post of Teacher Gr.III (Level-II) English pursuant to the advertisement dated 11.9.2017. The qualification for the said post, inter alia, provided as under:- "For the teacher of language, the candidate must have passed Graduation or equivalent examination with the corresponding Language as an optional subject." 3. As the petitioners had studied English as compulsory subject during course of their graduation, which they had undertaken from Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, Panjab University, Punjab and Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak and as in the estimation of the respondents, the said degree obtained by the petitioners did not fulfill the eligibility requirements, though the petitioners stood in merit, during course of counselling they were declared ineligible. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed SBCW Nos. 3162/2018, 3467/2018, 4033/2018 and 6065/2018, which writ petitions came to be decided by this Court relying on the judgment in the case of Ved Pal and Others. v. State of Rajasthan and Others.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3162/2018, decided on 5.3.2018, disposing of the writ petitions with the direction that as a Committee has been directed to be constituted in the case of Ved Pal to find out the similarity between the subject English (compulsory) and English (optional), the result thereof would be followed in the case of petitioners. 5. Pursuant thereto, the Committee gave its recommendation on 12.6.2018, based on which, the order dated 13.7.2018 (Annex.18) was issued by the respondents, inter alia, holding that the petitioners were ineligible in terms of the determination made by the Committee. 6. It is, inter alia, submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the issue raised in the present writ petitions questioning the validity of the order dated 13.7.2018 passed by the respondents is no more res integra as this Court in Komal Purohit v. State of Rajasthan and Others. 6. It is, inter alia, submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the issue raised in the present writ petitions questioning the validity of the order dated 13.7.2018 passed by the respondents is no more res integra as this Court in Komal Purohit v. State of Rajasthan and Others. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13707/2018, decided on 12.10.2018, wherein report of the Committee along with the order dated 13.7.2018 passed by the respondents was considered by this Court and it was laid down that the candidates who have obtained graduation with English as compulsory subject from the said Universities, would be eligible in terms of the requirement of the advertisement/Rules and, therefore, the petitions deserve to be allowed. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent State reiterated the submissions, inter alia, indicating that as the petitioners have not done their graduation with English as optional subject, they are not eligible for the said post and, therefore, in terms of the determination made by the Committee, the petitions deserve to be dismissed. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. This Court in the case of Komal Purohit after considering the various submissions made in this regard as well as the report of the Committee and the order passed by the State, though the issue therein pertained to the recruitment 2018, inter alia, came to the following conclusion:- "A perusal of the above Division Bench judgment would reveal that the Court noticed the issue about ineligibility of the candidates, who opt for a subject as a compulsory subject in graduation course and the requirement is of the subject as an optional subject, came to a categorical conclusion that the candidate having opted for English as a compulsory subject in the graduation course, the object of the Rules is satisfied. Once the Division Bench based on its interpretation of the identical Rule/requirement, came to the conclusion that a candidate having opted for English as a compulsory subject in the graduation course satisfied the object of the Rules, the determination made by the respondents holding the petitioners as ineligible cannot be sustained. Once the Division Bench based on its interpretation of the identical Rule/requirement, came to the conclusion that a candidate having opted for English as a compulsory subject in the graduation course satisfied the object of the Rules, the determination made by the respondents holding the petitioners as ineligible cannot be sustained. So far as the judgment in the case of Saroj is concerned, though the same apparently was not cited before the Division Bench, in view of the Division Bench judgment in the case of Deepak Bariya, the judgment in the case of Saroj has lost its efficacy and, therefore, the determination made by the committee relying on the judgment in the case of Saroj in ignorance of the Division Bench judgment in the case of Deepak Bariya , cannot be sustained. Consequently, the action of the respondents in insisting for English as optional subject at the graduation level and holding the candidates like the petitioners, who have studied English as compulsory subject at the graduation level, cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside. So far as the case of the petitioners, who have done their post graduation in English is concerned, their case stands on a still better footing. Besides the determination made hereinbefore, the status of those petitioners, in view of the series of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jyoti K.K., Chandrakala Trivedi v. State of Raj. and Others., (2012) 3 SCC 129 and Parvaiz Ahmad Parry v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others., (2015) 17 SCC 709, wherein it has been laid down that once the candidate had passed higher qualification, he has to be considered as having the prescribed qualification for the post, the petitioners with higher qualification of M.A. in English can't be held ineligible. In view of the above discussion, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioners, who have done their graduation with subject English as compulsory subject as eligible for Teacher Grade-III (Level-2) for subject-English and deal with their candidature pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.07.2018 appropriately and if they stand in merit and are otherwise eligible, grant them appointment in accordance with their merit. All determinations made by the respondents contrary to the above directions, shall stand quashed and set aside." 9. All determinations made by the respondents contrary to the above directions, shall stand quashed and set aside." 9. The issues raised in the present writ petitions stand squarely covered by judgment in the case of Komal Purohit, wherein all the submissions as made in response to the present writ petitions as well as the determination made by the Committee and the order passed by the respondents have been considered. In view of the above, the action of the respondents in holding the petitioners as ineligible for the post of Teacher Gr.III (Level-II) English cannot be sustained. 10. Consequently, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners by treating the petitioners who have done their graduation with English as compulsory subject as eligible for the post of Teacher Gr.III (Level-II) for the subject English and deal with their candidature pursuant to the advertisement dated 11.9.2017 appropriately and if they stand in merit and otherwise eligible, grant them appointment in accordance with their merit. All determinations made by the respondents contrary to the above directions, shall stand quashed and set aside.