Madhya Pradesh High Court
Meenal Asawa vs School Education Department on 9 October, 2018
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE
W.P.No.22688/2018
(CHANDAN LOHIYA Vs SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT)
W.P.No.22980/2018
(KU. ANURADHA CHOUHAN Vs SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT)
W.P.No.22380/2018
(PRINCE THAKUR Vs SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT)
W.P.No.22381/2018
(ROSHNI SAXENA Vs SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT)
W.P.No.22404/2018
(PANKAJ KUMAR LAVVANSHI Vs SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT)
W.P.No.22483/2018
(NARAYANSINGH MORYA Vs SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT)
W.P.No.22522/2018
(ASHISH PATIDAR Vs SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT)
W.P.No.22541/2018
(HEMANT VERMA Vs SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT)
W.P.No.22549/2018
(BHUPENDA ASALKAR Vs SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT)
W.P.No.22667/2018
(SHRAVAN Vs SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT)
W.P.No.22696/2018
(LOKPAL SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
W.P.No.22730/2018
(RAKESH DHAKAD Vs SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT)
W.P.No.22731/2018
(AKANSHA SISODIYA Vs SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT)
W.P.No.22755/2018
(KAPIL MEENA Vs SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT)
W.P.No.23511/2018
(AMITA CHOUDHARY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
W.P.No.23651/2018
(MEENAL ASAWA Vs SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT)
W.P.No.23716/2018
(PINKI YADAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
W.P.No.23735/2018
(NUPUR OJHA Vs DEVI AHILYA BAI UNIVERSITY, INDORE)
W.P.No.23908/2018
(PREETI MEENA Vs SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT)
W.P.No.24073/2018
(SARITA AMBAVATIYA Vs SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT)
Indore, Dated 09.10.2018
Shri Lokesh Mehta, Shri Ajay Bagadia, Shri Anil
Ojha, Shri Vivek Sharan, learned counsel for the
petitioners.
Ms. Bhakti Vyas, learned Government Advocate
for the respondents/State.
The petitioners have filed the present writ 2 petitions seeking permission to appear in the "High School Teacher Eligibility Test-2018" on the basis of M.Sc(Ag.) Professional Course . The petitioners are not having the B.Ed. Degree at present but they are pursuing the B.Ed. Course.
The similar issue came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court Principal Seat at Jabalpur. By order dated 28.09.2018, in W.A.No.1342/2018 (The Professional Examination Board Vs. Vikas Raghuwanshi and others) the Division Bench dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that B.Ed.degree is necessary even for appearance in the eligibility test also. Paragraphs 9 to 15 are relevant which are reproduced hereunder:-
"9. Since the petitioners are not possessing B.Ed. Degree, which is a condition prescribed in terms of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 by an institution authorized by the Central Government and also such conditions find mentioned in the statutory Rules framed by the State Government, therefore, a candidate who is not possessing B.Ed. Degree is not eligible to be considered for appointment in terms of the Rules.
10. The learned Single Bench has drawn a distinction that the petitioners are appearing in the eligibility test and not selection process. Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 8 provides for the qualification of the Teacher Eligibility Examination with the percentage as prescribed in sub-rule (5) of Rule 11 of the Rules. Therefore, eligibility examination is part of the Rules which is required to be qualified by the 3 candidates. Since eligibility test is for the purpose of the appointment, therefore, the writ- petitioners, who are not possessing B.Ed. Degree cannot be permitted to appear in the eligibility examination as well.
11. The Teacher Eligibility Examination is part of Rule 8 of the Rules. Sub-rule (1) thereof deals with condition of age for such examination and sub-rule (2) relates to educational qualification for such examination whereas sub-rule (3) mandates the conduct of Teacher Eligibility Examination. Therefore, before appearing in the eligibility examination, a candidate has to possess educational qualification required under sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 of the Rules.
12. Learned counsel for the writ-petitioners relies upon sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Act to contend that the Central Government can relax any condition in case suitable candidates are not available.
13. We do not find that any consideration is warranted in respect of such argument. Firstly, relaxation has to be granted by the Central Government on the recommendation of the State Government and that too, on the satisfaction that the suitable candidates are not available. It is premature to say that the suitable candidates of sufficient number will not be available. The State Government is to take a call as to whether the State Government has to seek relaxation in the eligibility condition from the Central Government and/or by the institutions authorized by the Central Government only after selection process is complete. Such claim is premature and cannot be granted in the writ petition. The relaxation cannot be claimed by the writ- petitioners in the writ petition as there is no right to seek relaxation by the State Government/Central Government.
14. In view of the said facts, present appeal is 4 allowed. The interim order passed by the learned Single Bench is set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondents/writ-petitioners is dismissed.
15. At this stage, it is stated by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners that the representation submitted by the writ-petitioners is pending consideration. The State Government may take an appropriate decision on the representation filed at an appropriate stage."
Though the petitioners are pursuing the B.Ed Course but at the time of advertisement and before the last date of submission of application form they did not have the requisite educational qualification. Hence they cannot be permitted to appear in eligibility test. However, the writ petitioners are at liberty to approach again before this Court if in future any relaxation is granted by the respondent in respect of eligibility conditions. Accordingly, the present petitions are disposed of. The order dated 28.09.2018 in W.A.No.1342/2018 (The Professional Examination Board Vs. Vikas Raghuwanshi and others) shall apply mutatis mutandis in the present petitions also. In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioners at this stage.
(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE RJ Digitally signed by Reena Joseph Date: 2018.10.10 10:48:56 +05'30'