Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Farhad Banu vs State & Ors on 8 December, 2017
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13986 / 2017
Farhad Banu D/o Late Shri Abdul Qaiyoum, Aged About 37 Years,
R/o Near Jain Temple, Mohalla Ghati, Hajipura, District Dungarpur
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Rural Development and
Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Government Deputy Secretary, Elementary Education
Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15271 / 2017
Vishal Devra Son of Laxmi Narayan Devra, Aged About 39 Years,
Resident of House No. 25/2, Malva Colony, Behind Darpan Talkies,
Pratapgarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of
Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan
2. Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13929 / 2017
Hemant Kumar Jain S/o Shri Rasik Lal Jain, Aged About 36 Years,
By Caste- Jain, Resident of Bawalwara, Tehsil- Kherwara, District-
Udaipur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of Rural
Development and Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
2. Director, Education (Elementary), Education Department,
Rajasthan, Bikaner.
(2 of 23)
[CW-13986/2017]
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13860 / 2017
Mukesh Kumar Son of Dhul Ji, Aged About 32 Years, Resident of
Shri Ram Colony, Near Nathelav, Tehsil and District Banswara.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of
Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13861 / 2017
Bhawana Upadhyaya Daughter of Devi Lal Pande, Aged About 33
Years, Resident of House No. 101, Upadhyaya Wara, Village Post
Bamaniya, Tehsil Salumber, District Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of
Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan
2. Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13994 / 2017
Parvati Sharma D/o Shri Bhagwati Shankar Sharma, Aged About
25 Years, Resident of Near Data Mandir, Dariyawad, Tehsil
Dariyawad District Pratapgarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of Rural
Development and Panchayati Raj, Goverment of Rajasthan,
Secretariate, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14057 / 2017
Pallavi Jain D/o Shri Subhash Chandra Jain, Aged About 24 Years,
Resident of VPO Barodiya Tehsil Bagidoura District Banswara.
(3 of 23)
[CW-13986/2017]
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of Rural
Development and Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Banswara.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14293 / 2017
Purnima Shrimal D/o Shri Inder Lal Shrimal, Aged About 41 Years,
R/o Soniya Chowk Ki Gali, District Dungarpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Rural Development and
Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Government Deputy Secretary, Elementary Education
Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14302 / 2017
Versha daughter of Shri Om Prakash Dwivedi, by caste Brahmin,
aged about 34 years, resident of Partapur, District Banswara.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of
Education, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department,
Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Director, Elementary Education, Government of Rajasthan,
Bikaner.
4. Zila Parishad, Banswara through the Chief Executive Officer.
5. Zila Paishad Dungarpur, through the Chief Executive Officer.
6. Zila Parishad Udaipur through the Chief Executive Officer.
(4 of 23)
[CW-13986/2017]
7. Zila Parishad Pratapgarh through the Chief Executive Officer.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14304 / 2017
Amit Soni son of Shri Ramesh Chandra Soni, by caste Soni, aged
about 30 years, resident of Paloda, District Banswara.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of
Education, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department,
Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Director, Elementary Education, Government of Rajasthan,
Bikaner.
4. Zila Parishad, Banswara through the Chief Executive Officer.
5. Zila Parishad Dungarpur through the Chief Executive Officer.
6. Zila Parishad Udaipur through the Chief Executive Officer.
7. Zila Parishad Pratapgarh through the Chief Executive Officer.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14571 / 2017
Manisha Pandya D/o Jayanti Lal Pandya, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
178, Indra Nagar, Near New Hospital Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of Rural
& Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Rajasthan,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13969 / 2017
Rajendra Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Nathu Lal Yadav, Aged About 32
Years, B/c Yadav (Chamar), R/o VPO Choukhala Via Barodiya
Tehsil Bagidora, District Banswara (Raj.).
(5 of 23)
[CW-13986/2017]
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Department of
Education (Elementary) Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15232 / 2017
1. Farhad Banu D/o Late Shri Abdul Qaiyoum, Aged About 37
Years, R/o Near Jain Temple, Mohalla Ghati, Hajipura, District
Dungarpur (Raj.).
2. Hemant Kumar Jain S/o Shri Rasik Lal Jain, Aged About 36
Years, R/o Village-Post Bawalwara, Tehsil Kherwara, District
Udaipur.
3. Rajendra Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Nathu Lal Yadav, Aged About 32
Years, R/o VPO Choukhala, Tehsil Bagidoura, District Banswara.
4. Purnima Shrimal D/o Shri Inder Lal Shrimal, Aged About 41
Years, R/o Soniya Chowk Ki Gali, District Dungarpur (Raj.).
5. Manisha Pandya D/o Shri Jayanti Lal Pandya, Aged About 34
Years, R/o 178, Indra Nagar, Near New Hospital, District
Dungarpur (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Rural Development and
Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Government Deputy Secretary, Elementary Education
Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15006 / 2017
Smt. Harsha Soni W/o Jayash Soni, D/o Om Prakash Soni, Age 32
years, By caste Soni, R/o Sabla, Tehsil Sabla, District Dungarpur
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Rural Development
and Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
(6 of 23)
[CW-13986/2017]
2. The Secretary, Directorate, Elementary Education Recruitment,
Bikaner (Raj.)
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dungarpur (Raj.)
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, Mr. Arjun Purohit, Mr.
R.S. Choudhary, Mr. Shreekant Verma, Mr.
Shyam Vyas, Mr. Ramdev Potalia, Mr. R.S.
Saluja, Mr. Govind Suthar, Dr. Rakesh Kumar
Sinha, Mr. Sukesh Bhati, Mr. T.C. Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.R. Singh, AAG with Mr. Dinesh Ojha
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 08/12/2017
1. Since the controversy involved in all the present writ petitions is common, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred, in sum and substance, with the following prayers:
" It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed with cost and by an appropriate writ, order or direction; the respondent No.3 may kindly be directed to include the name of the petitioner as per her merit in the select list dated 24.10.2017 (Annex.12) and also directed to allot the district for verification of documents and counselling and further she may be given appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III Level II in subject of English with all consequential benefits Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be (7 of 23) [CW-13986/2017] passed in favour of the petitioner.
Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner."
3. Brief facts of these cases, as noticed by this Court, are that the petitioners were having the qualification of Graduation in the respective subjects and the petitioners belong to the Tribal Sub-Plan (TSP) Area. The petitioners have also qualified their REET/RTET Examinations.
4. The respondents commenced with their recruitment exercise, namely, Primary and Upper Primary School Teachers Recruitment-2016 for the State of Rajasthan. For the said purpose, two advertisements were issued; one for TSP Area and the other for Non-TSP Area on 06.07.2016. However, the advertisement dated 06.07.2016 was challenged before the Jaipur Bench of this Hon'ble Court, and resultantly, the judgment was rendered on 27.04.2017 in Sher Singh & Ors. Vs. Dinesh Singh & Ors. (D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1464/2016).
5. The relevant portion of the judgment in Sher Singh & Ors. Vs. Dinesh Singh & Ors. (supra) reads as under:-
"35. The question, which arises for consideration of this Court, as noted above, is limited to as to how the merit is to be prepared. We find that as per the advertisement, which requires a candidate to have a particular minimum educational qualification and also to have REET eligibility, has decided to prepare merit only on the basis of the marks obtained in the REET which has resulted in causing ambiguity, confusion and administrative chaotic situation where a candidate may be able to secure appointment as a Teacher in a (8 of 23) [CW-13986/2017] particular subject, even though he may not have studied that subject at all. Such cannot be the purpose of selection and we, therefore, hold that the advertisement condition of preparation of merit itself being vague and contrary to the purpose sought to be achieved, deserves to be set aside and we accordingly do so. It may also be noted that a subject Teacher of level-2 is also entitled for further promotion under the relevant educational service rules in that subject to the level of Teacher Gr. II in order to teach higher classes. If a candidate enters on the lower post, even without having the minimum qualifications in that subject, would amount to resulting in a chaotic situation.
36. The selection on the basis of the condition laid down in the advertisement, therefore, is held to be bad in law and the said criteria is declared as invalid with further directions to the authority to re-advertise the vacancies by preparing a valid criteria of merit for appointment of Teachers for level-2 i.e. for subject Teachers for Classes from VI to VIII afresh keeping in mind the purpose of selection of Teachers in a particular subject.
37. All the candidates, who had already applied, need not have to apply again and would be treated as eligible for the purpose of selection which may be conducted now on the basis of criteria of merit which the authorities may lay down to achieve the purpose. The exercise may now be done within a period of four months. Other candidates, who may have become eligible during the intervening period, may also apply.
38. All the above appeals/petitions stand disposed of with the observations/directions as indicated above."
6. Thus, vide the aforequoted judgment of the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court, the conditions for selection pertaining (9 of 23) [CW-13986/2017] to the merit in the REET Examination were struck down and a direction was passed to the concerned authorities to re-advertise the present vacancies by preparing a valid criteria of merit for appointment of Teachers for Level-II, that is, for the Subject Teachers for Class VI to VIII afresh, keeping in mind the purpose of selection of Teachers in a particular Subject.
7. The Hon'ble Division Bench vide the aforesaid judgment in Sher Singh & Ors. Vs. Dinesh Singh & Ors. (supra) also expected that the earlier candidates shall not be required to fill the forms afresh and were to be considered in lieu of the changed criteria, after adopting the ratio of the said judgment.
8. The respondents thus issued a fresh advertisement/notification dated 11.09.2017, which is Annexure-7 to writ petition No.13986/2017 with the amended criteria for the purpose of TSP Area, and simultaneously, for Non-TSP Area also. The condition was incorporated in the notification/advertisement dated 11.09.2017 requiring the candidates not to fill the fresh application form and to update the necessary information for the purpose of the amended criteria.
9. The relevant condition No.1 mentioned in the aforementioned advertisement/notification dated 11.09.2017 reads as under:-
^^fo'ks"k uksV%& 1& jktLFkku izkFkfed vkSj mPp izkFkfed fo|ky; v/;kid lh/kh HkrhZ 2016 gsrq iwoZ esa tkjh foKkiu la[;k 02@2016 fnukad 06-07-2016 ds rgr ftu vkosndksa }kjk ysoy f}rh; ds fy, vkosnu fd;k x;k mUgsa nqckjk vkosnu i= Hkjus dh vko';drk ugha gksxhA ysfdu jkT; ljdkj dh la'kksf/kr vf/klwpuk fnukad 29-08-2017 ds vuqlkj ¼foKfIr ds fcUnw (10 of 23) [CW-13986/2017] la[;k 6-1 ¼ch½ ds vuqlkj½ viuh 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk ls lacaf/kr laiw.kZ lwpuk,sa vkWu ykbZu iksVZy ij iwoZ vkosnu i= dh ,Iyhds'ku jsQjsUl vkbZ Mh dk mi;ksx dj viuk MkVk viMsV djuk gksxk vU;Fkk laiw.kZ lwpukvksa ds vHkko esa mudk iwoZ dk vkosnu i= ekU; ugha gksxkA**
10. The last date mentioned in the aforementioned notification/advertisement dated 11.09.2017 for fresh application form and updating such information was 11.10.2017 for TSP and Non-TSP Areas. Thus, the process for TSP and Non-TSP Areas from the initial date of advertisement was going on simultaneously.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners state that for Non- TSP Area, the date for fresh application and updation was upto 11.10.2017. The criteria for preparation of the merit list was thereafter issued vide Press Note dated 18.10.2017.
12. The respondents thereafter issued a programme on 26.10.2017 for appointment of the candidates as per the select list dated 24.10.2017, after documents verification and conducting counselling according to the allotment of districts.
13. The petitioners having secured marks above the cut off marks were expecting their names to be there in the select list dated 24.10.2017, but their names did not appear in it and the reason furnished by the respondents was that the petitioners did not update/fill the latest form, as per the notification/advertisement dated 11.09.2017. Thus, the petitioners came to know about the updation consequent upon the judgment at the belated stage and could not abide by the condition so mentioned in the advertisement/notification to be done by 11.10.2017.
14. Learned counsels for the petitioners referred to the (11 of 23) [CW-13986/2017] judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dolly Chhanda Vs. Chairman, JEE and Ors. reported in (2005) 9 Supreme Court Cases, 779. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:
"7. The general rule is that while applying for any course of study or a post, a person must possess the eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose either in the admission brochure or in application form, as the case may be, unless there is an express provision to the contrary. There can be no relaxation in this regard i.e. in the matter of holding the requisite eligibility qualification by the date fixed. This has to be established by producing the necessary certificates, degrees or marksheets. Similarly, in order to avail of the benefit of reservation or weightage etc. necessary certificates have to be produced. These are documents in the nature of proof of holding of particular qualification or percentage of marks secured or entitlement for benefit of reservation. Depending upon the facts of a case, there can be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof and it will not be proper to apply any rigid principle as it pertains in the domain of procedure. Every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature.
8. This principle was explained and applied in Charles K. Skaria and Ors. v. Dr. C. Mathew and Ors. The controversy here related to admission to a post graduate course in medicine. The relevant rule provided for addition of 10% marks if a candidate possessed a diploma in the relevant subject or sub- specialty and this benefit could be given only if the candidate's success in the diploma course was brought to the knowledge of the Selection Committee before completion of selection in an authentic or acceptable manner. The Prospectus provided that the attested copies of statement of marks and other documents should be attached with every application. Three such candidates were given admission who had not attached the certificate of having passed the diploma along with their applications. Their admission to post graduate course was set aside by the High Court on the ground that their applications, wherein they claimed (12 of 23) [CW-13986/2017] the benefit of diploma, were liable to be rejected as the requisite certificates had not been attached. This Court speaking through Krishna Iyer, J. reversed the judgment of the High Court and held that the admission to the candidates had rightly been given as they had in fact passed the diploma before the date fixed. The relevant parts of paras 20 and 24 of the judgment, where this principle was highlighted are being reproduced below :
"20. There is nothing unreasonable or arbitrary in adding 10 marks for holders of a diploma. But to earn these extra 10 marks, the diploma must be obtained at least on or before the last date for application, not later. Proof of having obtained a diploma is different from the factum of having got it. Has the candidate, in fact, secured a diploma before the final date of application for admission to the degree course ? That is the primary question. It is prudent to produce evidence of the diploma along with the application, but that is secondary. Relaxation of the date on the first is illegal, not so on the second. Academic excellence, through a diploma for which extra mark is granted, cannot be denuded because proof is produced only later, yet before the date of actual selection. The emphasis is on the diploma; the proof thereof subserves the factum of possession of the diploma and is not an independent factor. .......... Mode of proof is geared to the goal of the qualification in question. It is subversive of sound interpretation and realistic decoding of the prescription to telescope the two and make both mandatory in point of time. What is essential is the possession of a diploma before the given date; what is ancillary is the safe mode of proof of the qualification. To confuse between a fact and its proof is blurred perspicacity. To make mandatory the date of acquiring the additional qualification before the last date for application makes sense. But if it is unshakeably shown that the qualification has been acquired before the relevant date, (13 of 23) [CW-13986/2017] as is the case here, to invalidate this merit factor because proof, though indubitable, was adduced a few days later but before the selection or in a manner not mentioned in the prospectus, but still above-board, is to make procedure not the handmaid but the mistress and form not as subservient to substance but as superior to the essence.
24. It is notorious that this formalistic, ritualistic, approach is unrealistic and is unwittingly traumatic, unjust and subversive of the purpose of the exercise. This way of viewing problems dehumanizes the administrative, judicial and even legislative processes in the wider perspective of law for man and not man for law. Much of hardship and harassment in administration flows from over-emphasis on the external rather than the essential. We think the government and the selection committee rightly treated as directory (not mandatory) the mode of proving the holding of diplomas and as mandatory the actual possession of the diploma. In actual life, we know how exasperatingly dilatory it is to get copies of degrees, decrees and deeds, not to speak of other authenticated documents like mark-lists from universities, why, even bail orders from courts and government orders from public offices...... ..."
(Emphasis in original)
9. The appellant undoubtedly belonged to reserved MI category. She comes from a very humble background, her father was only a Naik in the armed forces. He may not have noticed the mistake which had been committed by the Zilla Sainik Board while issuing the first certificate dated 29.6.2003. But it does not mean that the appellant should be denied her due when she produced a correct certificate at the stage of second counselling. Those who secured rank lower than the appellant have already been admitted. The view taken by the authorities in denying admission to the appellant is wholly unjust and illegal.
10. The appellant had qualified in the JEE-2003 but (14 of 23) [CW-13986/2017] the said academic year is already over. But for this situation the fault lies with the respondents, who adopted a highly technical and rigid attitude and not with the appellant. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the appellant should be given admission in MBBS course in any of the State medical colleges in the current academic year."
15. Learned counsels of the petitioners also relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Smt.Seema Parsoya Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.13530/2017 decided on 27.11.2017), which reads as under:-
"1. The grievance of the petitioners is that they could not appear on stipulated date for document verification for the post of Teacher Grade-III.
2. The Jaipur Bench of this Hon'ble Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18992/2017 (Brijesh Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and other connected writ petitions, decided on 08.11.2017 have disposed of the writ petitions by giving directions to the concerned Zila Parishad that they should provide one more opportunity to the petitioners in those writ petitions for their document verification.
3. This Hon'ble Court while passing the aforesaid order had fixed the date of document verification to be of 16.11.2017 and 17.11.2017.
4. Since the matter pertains to Jaipur Bench of this Hon'ble Court and all the petitions pending before Principal Seat of this Hon'ble Court are being decided today therefore, it would not be suffice to follow the same dates i.e. 16.11.2017 & 17.11.2017 for re-verification.
5. In the case of Brijesh Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra), this Hon'ble Court has passed the following order:-
"Since, the present batch of writ petitions has been filed by the petitioners with a common grievance, therefore, the same has been taken (15 of 23) [CW-13986/2017] up together and decided by this common order. The petitioners are the candidates, who have participated in the selection process for the post of Teacher Grade-III. The recruitment process was initiated by issuing advertisement in 2013 by the different Zila Parishad for making the appointment on the aforesaid post. The result of the said examination was declared in August, 2017 and the cutoff marks were also issued by calling the candidates 1.5 times in proportion to the vacancies advertised.
The required candidates when failed to join the Department, the respondents issued the second list in October, 2017 and again issued the cutoff marks of the second list and notified the candidates for document verification in the same ratio of 1.5 times against the vacancies, which were available.
The present petitioners are the candidates, who could not attend the office of Zila Parishad concerned, for document verification on the dates given by the Zila Parishad concerned. Grievance raised by the petitioners in the present writ petitions is about the document verification carried out only by issuing advertisement in the newspaper and not by personal information sent to them. The petitioners have pleaded that the respondents ought to have sent personal information to the petitioners for document verification. The petitioners have enumerated their various difficulties in not appearing on the stipulated date for document verification. The petitioners have also taken a plea that the advertisement was issued in the year 2013 and due to various litigations, the document verification was scheduled after a gap of about 4 years, that too, after revision of result. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that Clause No. 16 of the advertisement issued for making recruitment process clearly shows the manner of submitting the online applications by the incumbents. Counsel submits that recruiting agency had clearly given out the instructions to the effect that the candidates will be informed about their roll number and Examination Center on their E- mail ID/Mobile Number. Counsel submits that if the Department was obliged to inform the candidates about their roll number and Examination Center, the non-communication of personal intimation about document verification is much more fatal for the candidates, counsel has submitted that inclusion of petitioners (16 of 23) [CW-13986/2017] names in the merit list for consideration for appointment results into a crystallized right and as such, at this juncture, there is more responsibility on the part of Recruiting Agency to send the intimation to the candidates by personal mode.
Mr. S.K. Gupta, AAG, has appeared on behalf of the respondents and opposed the aforesaid prayer of the petitioners. Counsel for the respondents contended that the requisite intimation was published in the newspaper by the Zila Parishad concerned and also uploaded on the web-site of the Department. Mr. S.K. Gupta AAG also submits that there was no requirement of sending the intimation to the candidates by any other mode and in particularly the personal service. Mr. S.K. Gupta, AAG, submits that appointments were made in the year 2015 itself, but due to controversy raised about minimum marks obtained in RTET, the matter travelled to the Supreme Court and as such, the Department was to make appointments after the judgment of the Apex Court.
Counsel for the respondent has further submitted that initially the appointments were given only to those candidates, who have obtained minimum 60% marks in RTET and all other candidates were not eligible. Counsel for the respondent also submitted that the candidates who had applied in pursuance of the advertisement issued in 2013, should have been vigilant and they were required to keep track of the advertisements and once the intimation was uploaded on the web-site, no other mode of service is contemplated either in the Rules or in the instructions.
Mr. S.K. Gupta, AAG, has drawn attention of the Court towards Sub-Instruction No. (9) of the Instructions No. 19 wherein general instructions were given. Counsel for the respondents submits that all the candidates were informed that all information relating to the Examination was available on the web-site i.e. www.examtgt.rajasthan.gov.in. I have considered the rival submissions made by both the parties and perused the material available on record.
It is not disputed that the selection process for the post of Teacher Grade-III was conducted and set in motion in 2013 and due to various round of litigations, finally the second list of selected candidates with cutoff marks was (17 of 23) [CW-13986/2017] issued in August, 2017.
The appointments, which were made in the year 2015, were only on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates, when minimum qualifying marks are 60% in RTET. All the petitioners in the instant batch of writ petitions, are the candidates who are claiming to be in the select list as per the second revised list, which has been issued in October, 2017 and they have to appear for document verification before the Zila Parishad concerned. The Court finds that there were reasonable grounds in some of the cases, which were beyond control of the candidates, which prevented them from appearing on the stipulated date before the Zila Parishad concerned. Learned counsel for the parties have pointed out that in some of the cases, the person concerned was not keeping well, the lady delivered the child and there were many other compelling circumstances.
The Court finds that since all the petitioners are claiming themselves in the selected list and they were having more marks than the last cutoff marks declared in their respective category in the revised result, they deserve indulgence and the Court deems it proper to grant them one more opportunity to produce their documents for verification before the Zila Parishad concerned.
Though, the Selection Process is already delayed, yet considering the fact that the Department itself has issued the notice to the different candidates and also uploaded on the web-site, no harm would be caused to the Department, if in the interest of justice, one more opportunity is granted to these candidates. The Court without expressing any opinion about the rival submissions of the parties about requirement of sending the personal intimation to the candidates, suffice it to say that candidates are also required to remain vigilant about the entire recruitment process and official web-site is always available to them to see the developments which take place from time to time.
In view of the above, the present batch of writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents and Zila Parishad concerned that they should give one more opportunity to the petitioners to come forward for their document verification. It is made clear that said direction is only with regard to the document verification of the petitioners who were (18 of 23) [CW-13986/2017] prevented from appearing on the early dates given by the Zila Parishad concerned. It is also made clear that mere verification of document will not confer any right in favour of the petitioners to claim appointment, however, if the petitioners are finding their name/place in the merit or they are otherwise found suitable, their case will accordingly be considered for appointment in accordance with law. It is further directed that the petitioners will appear before the Zila Parishad concerned either on 16th or 17th November, 2017 for document verification and the Zila Parishad concerned will verify their documents, when they appear either of the date i.e. 16th or 17th November, 2017. Accordingly all the writ petitions are disposed of. Stay applications also stand closed."
16. Thus, the learned counsels for the petitioners state that if the candidate is possessing requisite qualification by the fixed date and he has only a technical shortcoming due to some error, then the amendment could be permitted liberally to continue in the selection process.
17. Learned counsels for the petitioners further harped upon the fact that a common selection exercise, namely, Primary and Upper Primary School Teachers Recruitment-2016 initiated out of the initial advertisement on same date i.e. 06.07.2016, for the same post, by separate advertisement for TSP and Non- TSP Areas, is continuing commonly as the last notification/advertisement commonly dated 11.09.2017 was also separately issued for TSP and Non-TSP Areas. For Non-TSP Area, the respondents themselves have made a relaxation on 11.10.2017 and thereafter, on 27.11.2017. The order dated 27.11.2017 reads as under:
"dk;kZy; funs'kd izkjfEHkd f'k{kk jktLFkku chdkusj (19 of 23) [CW-13986/2017] dzekad f'kfojksa/ izkjasa/ fu;qfDrsa/ fu;q&2sa/ 982sa/ VhthVh 2016sa/ysoy&2sa/2016&17 fnukad 27-11- 2017 jktLFkku izkFkfed vkSj mPp izkFkfed fo~|ky; v/;kid lh/kh HkrhZ &2016 (la'kksf/kr) vkWu ykbZu vkosnu dh vafre frfFk c<kus gsrq bl dk;kZy; ds }kjk jktLFkku izkFkfed vkSj mPp izkFkfed fo|ky; v/;kid lh/kh HkrhZ&2016 (la'ksf/kr) gsrq tkjh foKkiu la- 01sa/2017 fnukad 11-09-2017 esa v/;kid ysoy f}rh; (d{kk 6 ls 8) ukWu Vh,lih ,fj;k ds fy, vkWu ykbZu vkosnu i= Hkjus dh vfUre fnukad 30-11-2017 j[kh xbZ Fkh] ftls c<+kdj vafre fnukad 15-12-2017 dh tkrh gSA bPNqd vkosnd mDr vafre fnukad rd vkWu ykbZu vkosnu dj ldrs gS] 'ks"k 'krsZ ewy foKfIr ds vuqlkj jgsxhA ,l-Mh-
funs'kd] izkjfEHkd f'k{kk jktLFkku chdkusj"
18. Thus, for the same recruitment, namely, Primary and Upper Primary School Teachers Recruitment-2016, admittedly, the relaxation has been extended to the Non-TSP Area in relation to updation as well as filling the fresh application form upto 15.12.2017.
19. Learned Additional Advocate General, Shri P.R.Singh assisted by Mr.Dinesh Ojha stated that the candidates are contesting for highly reputed post of Teacher and are expected to have known that updation and fresh application form are necessary, as they all would have seen the notification/advertisement dated 11.09.2017, and therefore, ought to have made necessary updation alongwith fresh application form, until 11.10.2017, and if they have failed to do (20 of 23) [CW-13986/2017] so, then the same does not call for any relaxation to them for permitting them to fill the form or do the updation.
20. Learned Additional Advocate General also vehemently argued that the aware candidates amongst the petitioners knew that the ramification of the amended criteria arising out of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Sher Singh & Ors. Vs. Dinesh Singh & Ors. (supra), was the necessary legal outcome, and therefore, the updation and fresh application form in accordance with the notification/advertisement dated 11.09.2017 ought to have been made, as there was a specific note in the said advertisement/notification, which has already been reproduced hereinabove, and as per the said note, the candidates were required to update their information and fill fresh application form, in accordance with the notification/advertisement dated 11.09.2017 in consonance with the judgment of the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Sher Singh & Ors. Vs. Dinesh Singh & Ors. (supra).
21. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the respondents have initiated the selection process namely, Primary and Upper Primary School Teachers Recruitment-2016 for whole of the State of Rajasthan on 06.07.2016. The respondents have bifurcated the said process in two advertisements for the purpose of separate conditions/criteria for TSP Area vis-a-vis Non-TSP Area. Admittedly, the TSP Area is more backward and needs more consideration by the (21 of 23) [CW-13986/2017] respondents, as far as opportunity of participation in the selection process is concerned. But in no way, less relaxation/opportunity could have been given to the TSP Area for participation in the selection process, than the one given to Non- TSP Area.
22. Admittedly, the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Sher Singh & Ors. Vs. Dinesh Singh & Ors. (supra), called for a fresh notification/advertisement which was also issued on the common date for TSP and Non-TSP Areas, thus taking ahead the selection process requiring filling of fresh application form or updation of the information on or before 11.10.2017. Until 11.10.2017, the complete exercise for TSP and Non-TSP Areas may be with different advertisement for the same post for whole of the State of Rajasthan was being conducted simultaneously. A strange discrimination has however crept into by the respondents, whereby they have on the one hand have given liberal relaxation to the candidates belonging to the Non-TSP Area by allowing them to fill their fresh application form and updating their information until 15.12.2017, whereas the same benefit has been denied to the candidates belonging to the TSP Area. Thus, the candidates of TSP Area, who are more backward and obviously having less connectivity of media and meagre informative resources ought to have been given at least same treatment as was extended for the purpose of Non-TSP Area, which is of 65 days.
(22 of 23) [CW-13986/2017]
23. The petitioners obviously were under an assurance that they have filled up the online form vide original advertisement dated 06.07.2016, and thus, were relaxed about their candidature being considered and were expecting their names in the final merit list. But the petitioners were surprised to see the merit list dated 24.10.2017 that their names were not there in the said list and their deprivation only on account of their updation and fresh application form not being made.
24. It is also noted that the petitioners remained under an impression that since they have nothing new to furnish, therefore, they were not required to update any information or fill any fresh application form, and thus, as per the original advertisement dated 06.07.2016, their candidature shall be considered by the respondents, and the merit list shall also be prepared strictly as per their merit. However, the respondents, with the intention to clarify or to bring transparency in the selection process, kept the provision of updation or filling of fresh application form, on account of the changed criteria following the aforementioned judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court.
25. Thus, the respondents ought to have taken a lenient view towards the candidates belonging to the TSP Area, at least keeping them at par with the candidates belonging to the Non- TSP Area, as both the recruitment process were same for the same post and were being initiated by the notification of the same date and the only distinction was the geographical distinction, as TSP Area is admittedly more backward.
(23 of 23) [CW-13986/2017]
26. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court allows the present writ petitions by permitting the petitioners to fill up the forms / update their information in accordance with the terms and conditions laid down in the advertisement/notification dated 11.09.2017, until 20.12.2017.
27. It is further made clear that if the petitioners do the needful on or before 20.12.2017, then the respondents shall appropriately consider them in accordance with their merit and accord them appointment alongwith all other candidates who are there in the merit completing the selection process, namely, Primary and Upper Primary School Teachers Recruitment-2016. It shall be open to the respondents to prescribe the modus operandi within next two days for allowing the petitioners to submit their application form/update their information, in consonance with the notification/advertisement dated 11.09.2017.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J. Skant/-