Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Balkishan vs State (Panchayati Raj Dep )Ors on 3 September, 2013
Author: M.N. Bhandari
Bench: M.N. Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12468/2013 (Balkishan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) Date of Order : 03rd September, 2013 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Mr.Munesh Bhardwaj, for the petitioner/s. BY THE COURT:
The petitioner applied for the post of LDC. One of the required qualification for the aforesaid post is of Computer Science/Diploma in Computer Application from a University established in India or an Institution recognized by the Government.
Learned counsel submits that petitioner has obtained aforesaid qualification by obtaining Diploma in Computer Application from CMJ University, Meghalaya.
The qualification of computer application is not doubt obtained by the petitioner from an University but while hearing the similar matters, it came on record that His Excellency the Governor of Meghalaya has already directed for dissolution of CMJ University. It was also brought to the notice of this Court while hearing other writ petitions that Police Authority of Meghalaya have already seized entire record of the said University. The illegality in imparting education out of territorial jurisdiction of the State is another aspect as an University has to work within its State as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Similarly placed candidates even admitted that classes and degrees were given to them in the State of Rajasthan itself. Taking note of the aforesaid, this Court did not find candidate to be eligible for appointment based on the disputed qualification. In one of the case, even matter was sent for enquiry through the Superintendent of Police and the counsel appearing in the said case Mr.Sanjay Mehla informed about the adverse report by the Superintendent of Police, Jhunjhunu, though formal report is yet to be received in that case.
In view of above, I do not find any illegality if the petitioners' candidature has not been considered by the respondents based on qualification obtained from the CMJ University, Meghalaya.
The first petition in this regard was heard by this Court when the Advocates took a decision to abstain from the Court proceedings, thus petitioner/s argued the case in person. Therein, he could not give information about Meghalaya and Shilong, i.e., how he travelled or where he resided. He finally admitted that students of Rajasthan took admission in CMJ University followed by degree but never visited to Meghalaya State or taken classes there.
The other issue raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is in reference to Section 40 (iii) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short Act of 1995). Section 40(iii) of the Act of 1995 is quoted hereunder for ready reference:
The condition or desirability of training/test/experience whenever prescribe shall not apply to the disabled person for temporary appointment. Where a particular training is essential for appointment to a post, the disabled person may be required to receive such training within two years of his appointment.
The perusal of provision quoted above reveals that desirability of training/test/experience shall not apply to the disabled person for temporary appointment. The instant case is not for temporary appointment but of regular appointment, thus provision, quoted above, cannot apply. The other reason is that the provision aforesaid relax the qualification of training/test/experience and not the educational qualification. For the post of LDC, one of the required qualification is of Diploma in Computer Application/Science apart from other qualifications provided under the rules. In view of above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition, hence, it is dismissed so as the stay application.
(M.N. BHANDARI), J.
S/No.247 Preety, Jr.P.A. All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Preety Asopa Jr.P.A.