Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bharti Upadhayay vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 22 November, 2017
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12676 / 2017
Bharti Upadhayay D/o Shri Jai Shanker Pandya, Aged About 40
Years, Resident of Mohan Colony, Near Hari Mandir, Village Paloda,
Tehsil Garhi, District Banswara.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of
Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government
of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Banswara.
3. The National Council for Teacher Education through its
Secretary.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Lokesh Mathur
For Respondent(s) :Mr. SS Ladrecha, AAG with Mr. Vikas
Choudhary
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 22/11/2017
1. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs :-
"By an appropriate writ, order or directions the respondents may be directed to grant appontment to the petitioner on the post teacher grade-III with all consequential benefits;
Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.
Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner."
(2 of 3) [CW-12676/2017]
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out from Annexure-2 page-28 of the petition, the reservation policy applicable in the recruitment of Teacher Grade-III Direct Recruitment Competitive Examination 2013 which is to be made as per Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act and Rules 1994 and 1996.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that reservation policy laid down by the NCTE on 29.07.2011 is in consonance with Rule 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules 1996 and has been laid down while exercising power conferred under Section 23 of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009. The reservation policy in the notification dated 29.07.2011 states that relaxation up to 5 % in qualifying marks shall be allowed to the candidate to reserve category such as SC/ST/OBC/PH.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that they are governed by Rule 266 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act 1996 and as per the rules, the qualification laid down by the NCTE while exercising the powers conferred under Section 23 of Right of Children to free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 has to be strictly followed.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner is having only 42.31% marks which would not qualify him as per the notification of NCTE dated 29.07.2011, unless the 5% relaxation in the qualifying marks is approved / clarified / laid down by the NCTE.
6. In the aforesaid circumstances, since the clause of reservation policy is exemplary as the reservation policy includes (3 of 3) [CW-12676/2017] 5% relaxation in qualifying marks for reserved category candidates. If a broader meaning of reserved category is drawn then the petitioner although being in the widow category does not fall within the examples as given in respect of ST/SC/OBC/PH category candidates.
7. This Court also finds that it is for the NCTE to clarify that as to whether the reserve category candidate would include the widow category which is having a reservation in the present selection process as issued by the State Government. If such reservation is permitted to widow then the present petitioner shall be entitled for such appointment on merits.
8. In light of the aforesaid circumstances, we deem it appropriate to direct the NCTE to decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of 30 days from today, keeping in mind the notification dated 29.07.2011 to ascertain as to whether the petitioner who belongs to reserve category candidate (widow) shall be entitled to 5% qualifying marks relaxation in the reservation policy or not.
9. The writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the NCTE to decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order by taking into the aspect, which are being raised by the counsel for the petitioner in the petition.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J. sudheer