Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Chetan Datla S/O Babu Lal Datla vs The State Of Rajasthan on 22 February, 2022
Author: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13837/2020
1. Chetan Datla S/o Babu Lal Datla, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o G-791 Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. Rajesh Dhanki S/o Valchand Dhanki, Aged About 34
Years, R/o 108, Pura Dibsya, Mahukala, Tehsil-Gangapur
City, Mahu Khurd (Rural) Sawaimadhopur (Raj.).
3. Mamta Pargi D/o Shri Mohanlal Pargi, W/o Shri Kamlesh,
Aged About 34 Years, R/o P.b.o. Runjia, Tehsil Ghatol,
Distt. Banswara (Raj.).
4. Sandeep Singada S/o Veeka Singada, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Village Dungardhit, Post Unkala, Tehsil
Kushalgarh, Distt. Banswara (Raj.).
5. Sumanlata Rawat D/o Ajeet Rawat, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Village Maska Bada, Tehsil Sajjangarh, Distt.
Banswara (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional
Secretary, Women And Child Development Department,
Govt. Secretariat, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The Director, Directorate Of Women Empowerment
(W.e.), 7, Jhalana Institutional Area, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board,
Rajasthan Agriculture Management Institute Premises,
Durgapura, Jaipur.
4. The National Council Teachers Education, Through Its
Chairman, Fourth Floor, Jeevan Nidhi -II, Lic Building
Bhawani Singh Marg, Ambedkar Rd, Jyothi Nagar,
Lalkothi, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302005.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13913/2020
1. Ramkaran S/o Shivji Ram, Aged About 34 Years, R/o H-
598, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. Vishnu Dadhich S/o Dayal Ram, Aged About 37 Years,
R/o Village And Post Falka, Tehsil Jaitaran, Distt. Pali
(Downloaded on 23/02/2022 at 12:47:26 AM)
(2 of 29) [CW-13837/2020]
(Raj.).
3. Ramniwas S/o Jawari Lal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Sovo Ka Bas Kutiyasani Khurd, Nagaur (Raj.).
4. Ganpat Ram Bana S/o Shri Govind Ram Bana, Aged
About 33 Years, R/o Ren, Merta City, Distt. Nagaur
(Raj.).
5. Harendra Kumar Goliya S/o Chota Ram, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Village And Post Aakoli, Tehsil Mertacity,
Distt. Nagaur (Raj.).
6. Radheshyam Gehlot S/o Girdhari Lal, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Post Degana, Village, Degana, Distt. Nagaur
(Raj.).
7. Mainuddin, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village And Post
Lampolai, Tehsil Rio Badi, Distt. Nagaur (Raj.).
8. Deepak Kumar S/o Shri Raghunath Ram, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Village Manpura, Post Kundry, Tehsil
Parnatsar, Distt. Nagaur (Raj.)
9. Pukhraj S/o Khinvraj, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village
Padu Khurd, Tehsil Riyan Badi, Distt. Nagaur (Raj.).
10. Ramawtar Dukiya S/o Oma Ram Dukiya, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Village Roon, Tehsil Mundwa, Dzistt. Nagaur
(Raj.).
11. Hanuman Ram S/o Mula Ram, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
Ramgiyon Ka Bass, Roon, Distt. Nagaur (Raj.).
12. Rakesh Baperiya S/o Babu Lal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Village Basani Seja, Tehsil Merta City, Distt. Nagaur
(Raj.).
13. Dharma Ram S/o Shri Madan Lal, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o Village Modariya, Post Paliyas, Tehisl Degana, Distt.
Nagaur (Raj.).
14. Ramdev Tada S/o Shri Bhajan Ram Tada, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Village And Post Basani Seja, Tehsil Merta
City, Distt Nagaur (Raj.).
15. Ghyanprakash Meghwal S/o Shri Neema Ram Meghwal,
Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village - Morra, Tehsil Merta
City, Distt. Nagaur (Raj.).
16. Jagdish Ram S/o Arjun Ram, Aged About 42 Years, R/o
Village Lampulai, Tehsil Riya Badi, Distt. Nagaur (Raj.).
17. Jagdish S/o Ram Chandra, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
(Downloaded on 23/02/2022 at 12:47:26 AM)
(3 of 29) [CW-13837/2020]
Village And Post Rohila (West), Via Sadesa, Tehsil
Sadwa, Distt. Barmer (Raj.).
18. Hanuman Ram S/o Dharma Ram, Aged About 38 Years,
R/o Village Rohila (West) Via Sadwa, Tehsil Sadwa, Distt.
Barmer (Raj.).
19. Ganga Ram S/o Hari Ram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
Village And Post Sonari, Tehsil - Serwa, Distt. Barmer
(Raj.).
20. Bhagvana Ram S/o Shri Sajan Ram, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Viillage Rohila West, District Barmer (Raj.).
21. Shrawan Ram S/o Shri Ramniwas, Aged About 35 Years,
R/o Village And Post Tilanesh, Tehsil Degana, Distt.
Nagaur (Raj.).
22. Sawai Singh S/o Malam Singh, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
Village And Post Samrau, Tehsil Osian, Distt. Jodhpur
(Raj.).
23. Vimla D/o Ganga Ram, W/o Suresh Kumar, Aged About
32 Years, R/o Village - Sonari, Tehsil Sedwa, Distt.
Barmer (Raj.).
24. Sohani S/o Shree Ram W/o Jagdish Chandra, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o Village Rohila, Tehsil Sarwa, Distt.
Barmer (Raj.).
25. Ratee Ram S/o Tulsa Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Village And Post Bhagbhre Ki Beree, Tehsil Dhorimna,
Distt. Barmer (Raj.).
26. Kamala Choudhary S/o Narsi Ram, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o Karelon Ka Baas, Modriya, Paciyas, Distt. Nagaur
(Raj.).
27. Achla Ram S/o Alsa Ram, Aged About 37 Years, R/o
Siyagon Ka Tala, Bijrar, Distt. Barmer (Raj.).
28. Mahendra Singh S/o Tulsi Ram, Aged About 33 Years,
R/o Village Kaletra, Post Jhintiyan (Kakrawo Ki Dhani)
Tehsil Riyanbari, Distt. Nagaur (Raj.).
29. Manoj Kumar S/o Moda Ram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
Village Dotalai, Post Morra, Tehsil Merta City, Distt.
Nagaur (Raj.).
30. Presta D/o Dharma Ram Chhaba, Aged About 33 Years,
R/o Village And Post Badgaon, Tehsil Mertacity, Distt.
Nagaur (Raj.).
(Downloaded on 23/02/2022 at 12:47:26 AM)
(4 of 29) [CW-13837/2020]
31. Santosh D/o Lal Ram, W/o Om Prakash, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Mundel, Mundelo Ki Pol, Dangawas, Distt.
Nagaur (Raj.).
32. Bheekha Ram S/o Harbhaj Ram, Aged About 33 Years,
R/o Village And Post Ranasar Kalla, Via Dhorimanna,
Distt. Barmer (Raj.).
33. Rajesh Jangid S/o Sona Ram, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
Village And Post Rohila (West), Tehsil Sedwa, District-
Barmer (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional
Secretary, Women And Child Development Department,
Govt. Secretariat, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The Director, Directorate Of Women Empowerment
(W.e.), 7, Jhalana Institutional Area, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board,
Rajasthan Agriculture Management Institute Premises,
Durgapura, Jaipur.
4. The National Council Teachers Education, Through Its
Chairman, Fourth Floor, Jeevan Nidhi -II, Lic Building
Bhawani Singh Marg, Ambedkar Rd, Jyothi Nagar,
Lalkothi, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302005.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14037/2020
1. Ram Singh Badwa S/o Bhawani Singh, Aged About 29
Years, R/o V And P Dattob, Tehsil Toda Rai Singh, Tonk
(Raj.)
2. Hari Singh S/o Bhawani Singh, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o V And P Dattob, Via Maipura, Tehsil Toda Rai Singh,
Tonk (Raj.)
3. Vijendra Kumar S/o Ran Singh, Aged About 37 Years,
R/o V And P Jogiwala, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional
Secretary, Women And Child Development Department,
Govt. Secretariat, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. The Director, Directorate Of Women Empowerment
(Downloaded on 23/02/2022 at 12:47:26 AM)
(5 of 29) [CW-13837/2020]
(W.e.), 7, Jhalana Institutional Area, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board,
Rajasthan Agriculture Management Institute Premises,
Durgapura, Jaipur.
4. The National Council Teachers Education, Through Its
Chairman, Fourth Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-Ii, Lic Building,
Bhawani Singh Marg, Ambedkar Rd, Jyothi Nagar,
Lalkothi, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302005.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14047/2020
Nirmala D/o Shri Sardar Singh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village
And Post Dhindhora, Tehsil Suroth, Distt. Karauli.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Secretary,
Women And Child Development Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Integrated Child Development Services,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board,
Durgapura, Jaipur.
4. The National Council Teachers Education, Through Its
Chairman Jyoti Nagar, Lal Kothi, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14048/2020
Romika Kumari D/o Shri Bharat Shah, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
20/243, Block-20, Kalyanpuri, Delhi-9.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Secretary,
Women And Child Development Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Integrated Child Development Services,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board,
Durgapura, Jaipur.
4. The National Council Teachers Education, Through Its
Chairman Jyoti Nagar, Lal Kothi, Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 23/02/2022 at 12:47:26 AM)
(6 of 29) [CW-13837/2020]
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14395/2020
1. Sarita D/o Sita Ram, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Ward No.
17, Thoi, Khandela, Distt. Sikar, Rajasthan-332719
2. Preeti Gulia W/o Shri Vikash, Aged About 35 Years,
Resident Of Ismalia 9B, Village Ismalia 9B, Tehsil
Sampla, Dist. Rohtak Haryana-124501
3. Shweta D/o Shri Naresh Prasad Mandal, Aged About 30
Years, House No. 121,B Block, Gali No..24, Mahaveer
Enclave Part-2, Dk Mohan Garden, West Delhi-110059
4. Khyati Sharma Bipin Prasad, Aged About 27 Years,
Resident Of House No. 78, Paschim Vihar, Extension New
Delhi
5. Kumari Pooja D/o Shri Ramcharan Sundriyal, Aged
About 28 Years, Resident of A-134, Street No.5, West
Vinod Nagar, District-East Delhi-110092.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Women
Empowerment And Child Development Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan
2. The Director, Women And Child Development
Department, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur-302005
3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial
Services Selection Board, Jaipur,. Rajasthan
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 146/2021
Nayana Daila W/o Rakesh Kumar, D/o Rajendra Singh, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Vpo Kalota, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Women And Child Development Department,
Secretariat, Rajasthan Jaipur.
2. The Director, Women And Child Development
Department/icds, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. The Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, State Agriculture
(Downloaded on 23/02/2022 at 12:47:26 AM)
(7 of 29) [CW-13837/2020]
Management Institution Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur
Through Its Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 170/2021
Sarita Meena D/o Shri Satya Narayan Meena, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Ward No.2 Village-Mei Rajanpura, Tehsil Danta
Ramgarh, Distt. Sikar Rajasthan Pin Code-332703.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Women
Empowerment And Child Development, Secretariat,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur-302005.
2. Women And Child Development Department, Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial
Services Selection Board, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 569/2022
1. Gajraj S/o Shri Ramchandra, Aged About 43 Years, R/o
D-17, Mal Karni Nagar, Maharana Pratap Marg,
Panchwali, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Kishna Devi W/o Kailash, D/o Shivji Ram, Aged About 34
Years, R/o D-17 Village - Ranas, Post- Sirasna, Tehsil
Degana, Distt. Nagaur. Presently 95/05 Indra Gandhi
Nagar, Sector-9, Jagatpura, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. Shobha Devi W/o Ramkishan, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
Village And Post Jalau Nanak, Tehsil Degana, Distt.
Nagaur (Raj.).
4. Ramgopal S/o Shri Asharam, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
Village And Post Gaguda, Tehsil Merta City, Distt. Nagaur
(Raj.).
5. Sharvan Ram Galwa S/o Shri Jagram Gwalu, Aged About
31 Years, R/o Village And Post Gwalu, Tehsil Merta City,
Distt. Nagaur (Raj.).
6. Vashu Dev S/o Shesh Karan, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
Village And Post Paliyas, Tehsil - Degana, Distt. Nagaur
(Raj.).
7. Om Prakash Bhanwariya, S/o Shri Chhota Ram
Bhanwariya, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village And Post
(Downloaded on 23/02/2022 at 12:47:26 AM)
(8 of 29) [CW-13837/2020]
Sogawas, Tehsil Merta City, Distt. Nagaur (Raj.).
8. Dildar S/o Abdul Sattar, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
Village And Post Khejdla, Tehisl - Bilada, Distt. Jodhpur
(Raj.).
9. Ram Prakash S/o Kalu Ram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
Village And Post Banad, (Gurjaro Ka Bas), Distt. Jodhpur
(Raj.).
10. Mitha Ram S/o Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
Village Himmat Nagar, Post - Tilanes, Tehsil Degana,
Distt. Nagaur, (Raj.).
11. Goutam Chand S/o Shri Beeja Ram, Aged About 35
Years, R/o Village And Post Tapu, Teshil Ausiyan, Distt.
Jodhpur (Raj.).
12. Ruparam Meghwal S/o Nathu Ram Meghwal, Aged About
34 Years, R/o Village And Post Mandawara, Post
Chawandiyakalan, Tehsil Riyabadi, Distt. Nagaur (Raj.).
13. Jagdish S/o Ram Dev, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village
And Post Dangawas, Tehsil Merta, Distt. Nagaur (Raj.).
14. Suresh Kumar Rao S/o Shri Bhanwara Ram, Aged About
31 Years, R/o Village And Post Baggar, Tehsil Riya Bari,
Distt. Nagaur (Raj.).
15. Bansi Ram S/o Shri Nimba Ram, Aged About 34 Years,
R/o Village Gothdra, Post Paldi Kalan, Tehsil Degana,
Distt. Nagaur (Raj.).
16. Kailash Ram Nala S/o Pura Ram Nala, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Village Bagot, Tehsil Parbatsar, Distt. Nagaur
(Raj.).
17. Radheshyam S/o Ramdayal, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
Village And Post Ren, Tehsil Merta City, Distt. Nagaur
(Raj.).
18. Jagdish Prasad S/o Babu Lal, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Village And Post Lamba Jatan, Tehsil-Merta City, Distt.
Nagaur (Raj.).
19. Raju Devi W/o Nemi Chand, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
Latiyalo Ka Bas, Village Lampolai, Tehsil Merta City,
Distt. Nagaur (Raj.).
20. Aalam Mohemmed S/o Salman Mohemmed, Aged About
34 Years, R/o Jakharo Ka Bas, Lampolai, Tehsil Riyabadi,
Distt. Nagaur (Raj.).
(Downloaded on 23/02/2022 at 12:47:26 AM)
(9 of 29) [CW-13837/2020]
21. Surendra Kumar S/o Shri Jag Ram, Aged About 33
Years, R /o Chhajji Beri, Post Muniya, Distt. Barmer
(Raj.).
22. Ganga Ram S/o Lakha Ram, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Village And Post Bugaliya, Tehsil Dhana, Distt. Barmer
(Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additioanl
Secretary, Women And Child Development Department,
Govt. Secretariat, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The Director, Directorate Of Women Empowerment
(W.e.), 7, Jhalana Institutional Area, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board,
Rajasthan Agriculture Management Institute Premises,
Durgapura, Jaipur.
4. The National Council Teachers Education, Through Its
Chairman, Fourth Floor, Jeevan Nidhi -II, Lic Building
Bhawani Singh Marg, Ambedkar Rd, Jyothi Nagar,
Lalkothi, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302005.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 725/2022
1. Seema Thakur W/o Shri Santosh Kumar, Aged About 29
Years, R/o 143, Tila No.7B, Jawahar Nagar, Kachchi
Basti, Jaipur
2. Nirmala Meghwal W/o Shri Bharat Meghwal, Aged About
36 Years, R/o Jhadol Palasia, Puja Colony, Udaipur (Raj.)
3. Subhash Chand S/o Shri Gokulchand, Aged About 33
Years, R/o Muradpur, Tehsil Buhana, District Jhunjhunu
(Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Women And Child Development Department,
Secretariat, Rajasthan Jaipur.
2. The Director, Women And Child Development
Department/icds, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. The Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, State Agriculture
Management Institution Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur
(Downloaded on 23/02/2022 at 12:47:26 AM)
(10 of 29) [CW-13837/2020]
Through Its Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1385/2022
1. Roshani Battha D/o Dashrath Battha W/o Jayesh, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o 94, Shree Ji Nagar, Durgapur,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Ranjita Dantla D/o Bharat Kumar Dantla W/o Lokendra
Singh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o 94, Shree Ji Nagar,
Durgapur, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Shree Ram S/o Ram Kishan Vishnoi, Aged About 35
Years, R/o Jaalberi, Ranasar Kalla, Dhorimanna, District
Barmer, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional
Secretary, Women And Child Development Department,
Govt. Secretariat, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The Director, Directorate Of Women Empowerment
(W.e.), 7, Jhalana Institutional Area, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board,
Rajasthan Agriculture Management Institute Premises,
Durgapura, Jaipur.
4. The National Council Teachers Education, Through Its
Chairman, Fourth Floor, Jeevan Nidhi -II, Lic Building
Bhawani Singh Marg, Ambedkar Rd, Jyothi Nagar,
Lalkothi, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302005.
5. Savita, Currently Posted At Anganwadi Centre Barani,
Pro. Nagaur Gramin, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
6. Kum. Meena Khatana, Currently Posted At Anganwadi
Centre Badganv 1, Pro. Medra City, District Nagaur,
Rajasrhan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah with
Mr. Kamlesh Sharma
Mr. Akshit Gupta
Mr. Harendra Neel
Ms. Pragya Seth
Mr. Vijay Pathak
(Downloaded on 23/02/2022 at 12:47:26 AM)
(11 of 29) [CW-13837/2020]
Mr. Subhash Sharma
Mr. Ram Prasad Meena
Mr. Sandeep Garassa
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sheetal Mirdha, AAG with
Mr. Prateek Singh
Ms. Shweta Pareek
Mr. Sandeep Taneja
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
Order Reserved on :: 11/02/2022
Order Pronounced on :: 22/02/2022
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13837/2020
Although, the matters came up on various applications filed
therein but, on the joint request of learned counsels for the
respective parties, the writ petitions were heard finally at this
stage on their merit.
Since, all these writ petition involve similar facts and
common questions of law, they have been heard together and are
being decided vide this common order.
To appreciate the factual matrix, the facts from the file of SB
Civil Writ Petition No.13837/2020, Chetan Datla & Others
are being considered.
Challenge in the writ petition is to the result dated
10.11.2020 issued by the respondent No.3, the Rajasthan Staff
Selection Board whereby, the petitioners have not been selected
for appointment on the post of Pre-Primary Teacher (NTT). A
direction has also been sought for the respondents to consider
them as eligible for appointment on the aforesaid post and to
accord them appointment with all consequential benefits.
(Downloaded on 23/02/2022 at 12:47:26 AM)
(12 of 29) [CW-13837/2020]
The facts in brief are that the petitioners applied for
appointment on the post of Pre-Primary Teacher (NTT) in
pursuance of advertisement dated 21.08.2018. The selection
criteria was written examination which was conducted on
24.02.2019. Vide provisional select list dated 31.07.2019,
candidates including the petitioners to the extent of 1.5 times the
number of vacancies, were called for document verification from
03.09.2019 till 18.09.2019. Final result was declared on
10.11.2020 wherein roll number of the petitioners did not figure.
It is averred that their candidature was rejected on account that
they did not possess certificate of two years diploma of Pre-
Primary Education with nomenclature of Nursery Teacher Training,
the minimum eligibility prescribed under the Rajasthan Women
and Child Development (State and Subordinate) Service Rules,
1998 and Amended Rules, 2011 (for brevity "the Rules of 2011").
It is also averred that the petitioners have acquired qualification of
Pre-Primary Teacher Training course (PPTC) of two years duration
from an institution recognized by the National Council for Teacher
Education (for brevity-`NCTE') and in pursuance of the
advertisements dated 06.03.2012 and 27.08.2013 issued on
earlier occasion by the respondents prescribing the same eligibility
criteria, the candidates having PPTC qualification were given
appointment. It is stated that the NCTE is a statutory body
constituted under the National Council for Teacher Education Act,
1993 (for brevity-`the Act of 1993') with main objective to
achieve planned and coordinated development of the Teacher
Education System throughout the country, the regulation and
proper maintenance of norms and standards in the Teacher
Education System and for matters connected therewith. Section
(Downloaded on 23/02/2022 at 12:47:26 AM)
(13 of 29) [CW-13837/2020]
12(d) of the Act of 1993 mandates the NCTE to lay down
guidelines in respect of minimum qualification for a person to be
employed as a teacher in a recognised institution. As per Section
12A, for the purpose of maintaining standards of education in
schools, the NCTE may, by regulations, determine the
qualifications of persons for being recruited as teachers in any
pre-primary, primary, upper primary, secondary, senior secondary
or intermediate school or college, by whatever name called,
established, run, aided or recognised by the Central Government
or a State Government or a local or other authority.
It is pleaded that under Section 32, the NCTE is empowered
to make Regulations by notification in the official gazette to carry
out the provisions of the Act of 1993. Section 32(2)(d)(i)
authorises the NCTE to frame Regulations laying down the norms
and standards in respect of minimum qualification for a person to
be employed as a Teacher under Section 12(d). It is averred that
the NCTE having been established under an Act of Parliament
enacted in terms of Entries 65 and 66 of List-I, it is not open to
the State Government to fix any qualifications contrary to those
laid down by the NCTE and the State Government is bound to
follow the mandate of the Act of 1993. It is stated that vide
Regulations framed from time to time, the NCTE has provided for
two years pre-primary teachers training courses under different
nomenclature with NTT nomenclature in the year 2002 only and,
therefore, the petitioners with two years Pre-Primary Teachers
Training course with nomenclature different from NTT, are also
entitled for appointment.
The respondents No.1 & 2 have stated in their reply that
since the petitioners did not meet the requisite eligibility criteria,
(Downloaded on 23/02/2022 at 12:47:26 AM)
(14 of 29) [CW-13837/2020]
their candidature was rejected. It is averred that column No.1 of
the application form provides for Secondary/equivalent
qualification and similarly, column No.2 provides for the Senior
Secondary/equivalent qualification but, there is no corresponding
equivalent qualification under column No.3 which provides for
details regarding certificate of training in NTT from an institution
recognized by the NCTE. It is stated that the petitioners
erroneously indicated their eligibility as NTT in the application
form, which, as a matter of fact, they were not holding. It is
submitted, based on a communication dated 14.10.2016 by the
NCTE, that on account of an inadvertent error, the respondents
considered the PPTC qualification equivalent to NTT qualification
on earlier occasions.
The respondent No.3 has stated in its reply that the
petitioners having participated in the examination process with
knowledge of the requisite qualification, are estopped from raising
contention against the same. It is averred that in absence of
challenge to the validity of the eligibility criteria as prescribed
under the Rules of 2011, the writ petition is not maintainable.
The respondent no.4 has, in its reply, referring to the
provisions of the Act of 1993, submitted that since the council is
constituted under an Act of Parliament covered by Entries 65 & 66
of List-I of Schedule 7, it is not open to the State Legislature to
encroach upon the jurisdiction of the council to lay down minimum
eligibility for appointment as pre-primary teacher. It is averred
that Rules framed by the State Government relating to eligibility of
the teachers has to be in tune with the Regulations/notifications
issued by the answering council from time to time. It is submitted
that under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education
(Downloaded on 23/02/2022 at 12:47:26 AM)
(15 of 29) [CW-13837/2020]
Act, 2009 (for brevity-`the Act of 2009'), the NCTE has been
declared as the academic authority by the Central Government to
decide the minimum qualification for the persons to be appointed
as Teacher and also to decide the name of the courses to be used
for particular post in different Regulations. It is submitted that two
years teachers training course with NTT nomenclature was used
only in the year 2002 and thereafter, its name has been changed
to PTEP/NTEP (2005), Certificate in Education C.Ed. (2007), D.E.C.
Ed.(2009) & D.P.S.E. (2014) respectively.
The petitioners, in rejoinder to the reply filed by the
respondent no.1 and 2, submitted that the State is acting
malafidely and arbitrarily by not appreciating that PPTC and NTEP
courses are the same course as NTT course albeit with different
nomenclature. It is stated that the State Government was also
running NTT course with different nomenclature till the year 2010
as is evident from the letter dated 5.7.2005 issued by the NCTE to
Mewar Girls Institute of Technology and the order dated
25.10.2005 issued in respect of Geeta Bajaj Pre-Primary Mahila
Shikshak Prashikshan Vidyalaya. It is averred that since the year
2010, the State of Rajasthan has stopped running the NTT course
whereas, the other States are still awarding certificate of NTT
course. It is pleaded that the advertisement provides that
candidates studying in final year of the qualifying examination can
apply; meaning thereby, the candidates while pursuing their NTT
course from States other than the State of Rajasthan can apply in
the selection process.
The petitioner no.2, Rajesh Dhanki has, vide his additional
affidavit dated 12.1.2022, submitted that vide order dated
17.3.2021 issued by the respondents, 52 candidates having
(Downloaded on 23/02/2022 at 12:47:26 AM)
(16 of 29) [CW-13837/2020]
acquired diploma in Pre-Primary Course (for short-`PPC') from the
Geeta Bajaj Pre-Primary Mahila Shikshak Prashikshan Vidyalaya,
have been given appointment.
The respondents have, in their reply to the additional
affidavit, submitted that though 52 persons who have been
accorded appointment, have done two years diploma course in
PPC; but, since NTT course certificate was issued to them by the
Education Department, Rajasthan, they have been accorded
appointment.
Shri Vigyan Shah, learned counsel for the petitioners
reiterating the averments made in the writ petition, submitted that since the NCTE has been established under a Central Act of 1993 enacted under Entries 65 and 66 of List-I of Schedule-7, it has primacy over the State legislation in respect of area covered under its jurisdiction. He submitted that the NCTE has, vide Regulations issued from time to time, provided for two years Pre-Primary Teachers Training Courses under different nomenclature such as NTT (2002), PTEP/NTEP (2005), Certificate in Education C.Ed. (2007), D.E.C. Ed.(2009) and D.P.S.E. (2014) respectively. He submitted that even in the State of Rajasthan, the 2 years course was being reckoned with nomenclature different from the NTT as is evident from the permission granted by the NCTE for opening of new institutions in the State of Rajasthan; such as, Pre-Primary Course (PPC) of two years by Geeta Bajaj Pre-Primary Mahila Shikshak Prashikshan Vidyalaya and Pre School Teacher Education Programme of one year duration by Maulana Azad Pre School Teacher Training School.
Learned counsel submitted that since in the earlier two recruitment vide advertisements dated 6.3.2012 and 27.8.2013, (Downloaded on 23/02/2022 at 12:47:26 AM) (17 of 29) [CW-13837/2020] the candidates with two years Pre-Primary Teacher Training Course with nomenclature other than the NTT, were accorded appointment, the petitioners were under a legitimate expectation that their candidature would also be entertained by the respondents and, therefore, did not assail the eligibility criteria prescribed in the advertisement.
He submitted that petitioners have obtained PPTC certificate from the Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal and have completed their course from the institutions recognised by the NCTE. Drawing attention of this Court towards the Circular dated 23.6.2015 issued by the Board of Secondary Education, M.P., learned counsel submitted that nomenclature of the course from the PPTC was changed to DPSC from the Session 2015-2016 keeping in view the Regulation 2014 of the NCTE. Referring to the letters dated 31.8.2016, 18.10.2016 and 14.10.2016 issued by the NCTE, he submitted that the authorities in the State of Rajasthan were duly informed that the PPTC course was a duly approved two years Teachers Training Course by it. He, therefore, submitted that since the petitioners possess the two years' Pre- Primary Teacher Training Course from the institutions recognised by the NCTE albeit with different nomenclature from the NTT, they are eligible and entitled for appointment on the post of Pre- Primary Teacher in pursuance of advertisement dated 21.8.2018. He, in support of his submissions, relied upon the following judgements:
1. Veena Vadini Samaj Kalyan Vikash Samiti vs. M.P. Board of Secondary Education & Ors.-MANU/MP/1184/2012
2. Anand Yadav vs. State of U.P. & Ors.-2020 SCC Online SC 823.(Downloaded on 23/02/2022 at 12:47:26 AM)
(18 of 29) [CW-13837/2020]
3. Ram Sharan Maurya & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.-2020 SCC Online SC 939
4. Kailash Chand Harijan vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.-
(2006) 4 WLC 337
5. State of Maharashtra vs. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidhyalaya -(2006) 9 SCC 1.
6. State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Brahmputra Metallics Ltd.- 2020 SCC OnLine SC 968.
Learned counsels for rest of the petitioners adopted the submissions made by Mr. Vigyan Shah.
Ms. Sheetal Mirdha, learned AAG, drawing attention of this Court towards Entry-41 of List-2, submitted that, to provide for eligibility for appointment in the State Public Services is in the exclusive domain of the State Government in furtherance whereof, Rules of 2011 have been enacted under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. She submitted that Schedule-2 under the Rules of 2011 specifically stipulates two years Nursery Teacher Training (NTT) course from the institution recognised by the NCTE as one of the requisite eligibility for appointment as Pre-Primary Teacher. She submitted that the Act of 1993 authorises the Council to prescribe minimum eligibility for appointment which has not been tinkered with under the Rules of 2011 and the respondents have taken a conscious decision to restrict entry to the candidates having passed NTT course only well within its competence. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners well aware of the requisite eligibility, erroneously represented themselves to have acquired NTT qualification in their application form which did not provide for any equivalent qualification. Referring to the letter dated 12.2.2021 issued by the NCTE addressed to the Director, (Downloaded on 23/02/2022 at 12:47:26 AM) (19 of 29) [CW-13837/2020] Samekit Bal Vikas Sewa (Women and Child Development Department), Government of Rajasthan, learned AAG submitted that since there is no course in the nomenclature of PPTC in the NCTE Regulations, the petitioners were not entitled for appointment.
She submitted that petitioners are seeking equivalence of other two years Pre-Primary Teacher Training courses with the NTT course and this Court, not being an expert academic body, should refrain itself from venturing into this aspect.
Ms. Mirdha submitted that there cannot be any estoppel against the law and the petitioners are not entitled for appointment on the premise that on earlier occasions, ineligible persons came to be extended appointment. She submitted that the petitioners are barred from assailing the eligibility on the principle of estoppel and acquiescence. She, in support of her submissions, relies upon following judgements.
1. Virendra Kumar Verma vs. Public Service Commission, Uttrakhand & Ors.-(2011) 1 SCC 150.
2. D. Sarojakumari vs. R. Helen Thilakom & Ors.-(2017) 9 SCC 478.
3. Maharashtra Public Service Commission vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade & Ors.-(2019) 6 SCC 362.
4. State of Orissa vs. Mamata Mohanty-(2011) 3 SCC 436.
5. Prakash Chand Meena & Ors. vs. State of Raj. & Ors.- (2015) 8 SCC 484.
6. Yogesh Kumar & Ors. vs. Govt. of NCT, Delhi & Ors.- (2003) 3 SCC 548.
7. V.K. Sood vs. Secretary, Civil Aviation & Ors.-1993 Suppl (3) SCC 9.
(Downloaded on 23/02/2022 at 12:47:26 AM)
(20 of 29) [CW-13837/2020] Ms. Shweta Pareek, learned counsel on behalf of the Council submitted that the Act of 1993 being a Central Act enacted under Entries 65 and 66 of List-I of Schedule-7, has primacy over the State legislation. She submitted that the State Government is bound to have its Rules and Regulations laying down eligibility for appointment to the post of Teachers including Pre-Primary Education Teacher in tune with the Rules and Regulations issued by it from time to time under the Act of 1993. Learned counsel submitted that the Council runs two years Pre-Primary Teachers Training Course from time to time under different nomenclature and the course undertaken by the petitioners under the nomenclature of PPTC, B.P.Ed., DPSC or any other nomenclature as per the Regulations issued by the Council, from the recognised institutions, are eligible for appointment despite not having certificate of NTT course. She, in support of her submissions, relied upon the judgement in case of the State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Shiv Kumar-(2018) 12 SCC 595.
Mr. Sandeep Taneja, learned counsel on behalf of Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, adopting the submissions made by Ms. Sheetal Mirdha, added that the eligibility prescribed under the advertisement is in perfect consonance with the eligibility laid down under the Rules of 2011. He submitted that having participated in the recruitment process fully aware of the eligibility criteria, it is not open for the petitioners to turn around and challenge the same after remaining unsuccessful in it. He further submitted that since the qualification prescribed under the Rules of 2011 is not under challenge, the petitioners are not entitled for the relief claimed.
Heard and considered.
(Downloaded on 23/02/2022 at 12:47:26 AM)
(21 of 29) [CW-13837/2020] The core question involved in these writ petitions is to the entitlement of the petitioners with two years Pre-Primary Teachers Training Course from the institutions recognised by the NCTE, though, with nomenclature different from the NTT, for appointment on the post of Pre-Primary Teachers in pursuance of advertisement dated 21.8.2018.
First, this Court examines the Scheme of the Act of 1993 enacted by the Parliament under Entries 65 and 66, List-I of Schedule-7 of the Constitution of India.
"12. Functions of the Council.--It shall be the duty of the Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring planned and co-ordinated development of teacher education and for the determination and maintenance of standards for teacher education and for the purposes of performing its functions under this Act, the Council may--
(e) lay down norms for any specified category of courses or trainings in teacher education, including the minimum eligibility criteria for admission thereof, and the method of selection of candidates, duration of the course, course contents and mode of curriculum;
12A. Power of Council to determine minimum standards of education of school teachers.--For the purpose of maintaining standards of education in schools, the Council may, by regulations, determine the qualifications of persons for being recruited as teachers in any pre-primary, primary, upper primary, secondary, senior secondary or intermediate school or college, by whatever name called, established, run, aided or recognised by the Central Government or a State Government or a local or other authority:
Provided that nothing in this section shall adversely affect the continuance of any person recruited in any pre-primary, primary, upper primary, secondary, senior secondary or (Downloaded on 23/02/2022 at 12:47:26 AM) (22 of 29) [CW-13837/2020] intermediate schools or colleges, under any rule, regulation or order made by the Central Government, a State Government, a local or other authority, immediately before the commencement of the National Council for Teacher Education (Amendment) Act, 2011 (18 of 2011) solely on the ground of non-fulfilment of such qualifications as may be specified by the Council:
Provided further that the minimum qualifications of a teacher referred to in the first proviso shall be acquired within the period specified in this Act or under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (35 of 2009).]
32. Power to make regulations.--(1) The Council may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, generally to carry out the provisions of this Act.
(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such regulations may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:--
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(d) the norms, guidelines and standards in respect of--
(i) the minimum qualifications for a person to be employed as a teacher under clause (d) of section 12;
(ii) the specified category of courses or training in teacher education under clause (e) of section 12;
(iii) starting of new courses or training in recognised institutions under clause (f) of section 12;
(iv) standards in respect of examinations leading to teacher education qualifications referred to in clause (g) of section 12;
(v) the tuition fees and other fees chargeable by institutions under clause (h) of section 12;(Downloaded on 23/02/2022 at 12:47:26 AM)
(23 of 29) [CW-13837/2020]
(vi) the schemes for various levels of teacher education, and identification of institutions for offering teacher development programmes under clause (l) of section 12;
1[(dd) the qualifications of teachers under section 12A." Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 reads as under:
"23. Qualifications for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers.--(1) Any person possessing such minimum qualifications, as laid down by an academic authority, authorised by the Central Government, by notification, shall be eligible for appointment as a teacher.
(2) Where a State does not have adequate institutions offering courses or training in teacher education, or teachers possessing minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1) are not available in sufficient numbers, the Central Government may, if it deems necessary, by notification, relax the minimum qualifications required for appointment as a teacher, for such period, not exceeding five years, as may be specified in that notification:
Provided that a teacher who, at the commencement of this Act, does not possess minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1), shall acquire such minimum qualifications within a period of five years. (3) The salary and allowances payable to, and the terms and conditions of service of, teachers shall be such as may be prescribed."
The NCTE has been declared as "academic authority" under Section 23 of the Act of 2009.
Although, this Court does not find any conflict in the qualification prescribed by the NCTE and the State Government for (Downloaded on 23/02/2022 at 12:47:26 AM) (24 of 29) [CW-13837/2020] appointment of Pre-Primary Teachers, which would be referred at appropriate place; however, from the conspectus of the aforesaid statutory provisions, it is apparent that the NCTE is the competent authority empowered to lay down the minimum eligibility for appointment of the Teachers through out the country including the Pre-Primary Teachers. In this regard, reference may also be have to the following judgements:
1. State of Maharashtra vs. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Sansthan-(2006) 9 SCC page 1.
2. Kailash Chand Harijan vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.-
(2006) 4 WLC 337.
3. State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Shiv Kumar-(2018) 12 SCC
595. The NCTE has, vide Regulations issued from time to time, provided different nomenclature to Pre-Primary Teacher Education course which is summarised as under:
Regulation Level Duration Nomenclature
and year
2005 i) Age Group 4-6 years One Year Pre-School Teacher
(Appendix-3) Education Programme
ii) Age Group 4-6 years Two Years Nursery Teacher Education
extended for Class 1&2 (age Programme
group 6-8 years) (Appendix-
4)
2007 Age Group 0-6 years One year Certificate in Education
(Appendix-1) (C.Ed.)
2009 Early Childhood Education Two years Pre School/Nursery Teacher
including Class 1 & 2 of the Education Programme
Primary Education known as:-
(Appendix-1) Diploma in Early Childhood
Education (D.E.C.Ed.)
2014 Early Childhood Education Two years Pre-School Education
(Appendix-1) Programme for nursery
schools etc. earlier known as
D.E.C.Ed. Renamed as:-
Diploma in Pre School
Education (DPSE)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2022 at 12:47:26 AM)
(25 of 29) [CW-13837/2020]
Under the Schedule appended with the Rules of 2011, one of the eligibility criteria for appointment as Pre-Primary Teacher is two years diploma of Pre-Primary Education with nomenclature of Nursery Teacher Training. The material on record reveals that the NCTE has recognised two years Pre-Primary Teacher Training course with nomenclature of NTT in the year 2002 only; but, State of Rajasthan continued to issue NTT certificate till the year 2010. Diploma certificate in two years Pre-Primary Teacher Training course has been granted in the State of Rajasthan under nomenclature different from the NTT such as PPC as is evident from the order dated 25.10.2005 issued by the NCTE to Geeta Bajaj Pre-Primary Mahila Shikshak Prashikshan Vidyalaya, Moti Doongri, Jaipur.
The respondent-State has not disputed competence of the NCTE to provide minimum eligibility for appointment on the post of Pre-Primary Teacher. However, it was urged on its behalf that without tinkering with the minimum eligibility laid down by the NCTE, it has consciously chosen the NTT course only as the eligibility out of many two years Pre-Primary Teacher Training Courses being run by NCTE; but, the original record of the proceedings submitted by the State for perusal of this Court does not substantiate the submission inasmuch as it does not reveal any deliberation on this aspect. Even during the course of arguments, the learned AAG could not offer any explanation as to why and how the State is insisting upon the NTT certificate course as the only essential eligibility in absence of its case of this course being, even if not better than the other two years teacher training courses with different nomenclature in any manner, at least, (Downloaded on 23/02/2022 at 12:47:26 AM) (26 of 29) [CW-13837/2020] distinct from the courses with different nomenclature. As a matter of fact, it has been case of none of the parties that the two years teacher training courses with the nomenclature different from the NTT certificate course are in any manner different and distinct from it or from each other. There is not even a shred of material on record to show that the change in nomenclature of the two years Pre-Primary Teacher Training course by the NCTE from time to time entails any corresponding fundamental or substantial change or for that matter, any change in the syllabus or curriculum or in the basic or salient features of the course so as to make it distinct from each other, in absence whereof, this Court finds action of the respondents in restricting eligibility to the candidates having NTT certificate only, to be unjust, unreasonable and arbitrary.
Petitioners' claim for appointment on the strength of two years Pre-Primary Teacher Training Course with nomenclature different from the NTT gets emboldened from the appointment order dated 17.3.2021 whereby, 52 candidates having acquired their diploma in two years Pre-Primary Teacher Training under the nomenclature of "PPC", have been given appointment in pursuance of selfsame advertisement dated 21.8.2018. Contention of learned AAG that these persons were extended appointment despite having diploma in PPC as Education Department has issued them certificate of NTT course flies in the face of certificate dated 25.7.2009 placed on record by the respondents as Annexure- R/AA/1 issued in favour of one of such appointees which does not reveal that the Education Department has reckoned his two years Pre-Primary Teacher Training course as NTT course. This fact (Downloaded on 23/02/2022 at 12:47:26 AM) (27 of 29) [CW-13837/2020] speaks volume about the highly unreasonable and arbitrary manner in which the respondents have conducted themselves. In these circumstances, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents to contend that the candidates having NTT certificate course only are entitled for appointment in pursuance of advertisement dated 21.8.2018.
There is another important aspect of the matter. As submitted by the State Government, no NTT course is being conducted in the State of Rajasthan since the year 2010. Note under clause-7 of the advertisement provides that a candidate who has appeared or is appearing in the last year examination of the requisite eligibility qualification, shall also be entitled to apply for appointment; meaning thereby, the candidates who are pursuing two years teachers training course with NTT nomenclature from the States other than the State of Rajasthan are entitled to apply for appointment but, not the candidates from the State of Rajasthan where certificate with NTT nomenclature is not being awarded, undisputedly, since the year 2010. Thus, the candidates pursuing same two years teachers training course in Rajasthan which is being pursued by the candidates from outside the Rajasthan albeit with different nomenclature, have been put to hostile discrimination. It also does not have any reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved i.e. to have meritorious candidates available for appointment and this artificial classification based on nomenclature of the course only, is unintelligible.
This Court does not agree with the respondents' contention that it being a case of equivalence, this Court should refrain from (Downloaded on 23/02/2022 at 12:47:26 AM) (28 of 29) [CW-13837/2020] interfering as, the petitioners are not claiming equivalence of the two years diploma course done by them with the NTT course; rather, they have been able to establish that in absence of any difference in the two years diploma training courses done by them from the NTT course, except that in nomenclature, they are eligible and entitled for appointment in pursuance of advertisement dated 21.8.2018.
Contention of the learned State Counsel as to validity of PPTC course relying on the letter dated 12.2.2021 issued by the NCTE does not merit acceptance in view of overwhelming evidence on record to show that PPTC course has been a recognised two years Pre-Primary Teacher Course by the NCTE. In para 32 of the writ petition, a specific averment has been made on the strength of letters issued by the NCTE that in other State viz. Madhya Pradesh, NCTE has recognised the 2 years Pre-Primary Teacher Course in the nomenclature of PPTC for appointment as Pre- Primary Level Teacher which has not been disputed and denied by the NCTE in its reply. Even during the course of arguments, learned counsel for NCTE categorically stated that NCTE adheres to its reply to para 32 of the writ petition. In view thereof, no credence can be given to letter dated 12.2.2021.
In view of aforesaid analysis of the material on record, this Court does not deem it necessary to make reference of the judgements relied upon by the learned counsels for the respective parties which mainly pertain to discretion of employer to prescribe minimum eligibility for appointment, estoppel, acquiescence, equivalence.
(Downloaded on 23/02/2022 at 12:47:26 AM)
(29 of 29) [CW-13837/2020] The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that the writ petitions deserve to be allowed.
The writ petitions are allowed accordingly. It is held that the petitioners with two years Pre-Primary Teacher Training course from the institutions recognised by the NCTE with nomenclature different from the NTT course, are entitled for appointment in pursuance of advertisement dated 21.8.2018. The respondents are directed to accord them appointment with all consequential benefits from the date persons less meritorious than them have been given appointment barring actual monetary benefits. Compliance to be made within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J RS/ (Downloaded on 23/02/2022 at 12:47:26 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)