Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ridhupal Singh Charan & Ors vs State & Ors on 16 November, 2016
Author: Govind Mathur
Bench: Govind Mathur, Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
--------------------------------------------------------------
D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12309/2015
PETITIONERS :
1. Ridhupal Singh Charan S/o Bhanwar Dan Charan,
Cate. O.B.C., aged about 22 yers, R/o Charni ka
Mohala, Vill. Motisary, Post-Bala, Teh. Ahore, Dist.
Jalor, Rajasthan
2. Rajveer Singh S/o Suresh Singh Cate. O.B.C., aged
about 25 years, V/P-Sarsena, the. Weir, Dist. Baratpur,
Rajasthan
3. Vikram Singh Gurjar S/o Remeshwar Prasad, Cate.
O.B.C., aged about 27 years, R/o Vill. Bopiya, Post
chhajakanangal the. Neemka Thana, Dist. Sikar,
Rajasthan
4. Barkat Ali S/o Abdul Hakim, Cate. O.B.C., aged
about 29 years, R/o New Masjid Teliyan Ke Samne, Vill.
Pipar City, Dist. Jodhpur, Rajasthan
5. Kamlesh Kumar Meena S/o Sitaram Meena, Cate.
S.T., aged about 22 yers, R/o Vill. Gudadiya, post-
[2]
Talawagoan the. Lalsot, Dist. Dausa, Rajasthan
6. Shrimohan Meena S/o Prahalad Meena, Cate. S.T.,
aged about 22 years, R/o Vill. Saviyapuri, Post Inyati,
the. Sapotra, Dist. Karalui, Rajasthan
7. Girdhari Lal Joshi S/o Narsi Ram Joshi, aged about
27 years, R/o V/P-Dhanol, the. Raniwara, Dist. Jalor,
Rajasthan
8. Nakat Dan S/o Shri Ladhu Dan, Cate. O.B.C. Aged
about 26 years, R/o V/P-Suwap, the. Phalodi, Dist.
Jodhpur, Rajasthan
9. Kalu Ram Meena S/o Dalu Ram Meena, Cate. S.T.,
ated about 26 years, R/o Vill. Prempura, Post
Shyampura (Kalan), the. Lalsot, Dist. Dausa, Rajasthan
10. Kavita Kumari S/o Jai Singh, Cate. O.B.C., aged
about 24 years, R/o Vill. Jakopur, Post-Baghana, the.
Kotkasim, Dist. Alwar, Rajasthan
11. Beekesh Kumari S/o Indar Singh, Cate. O.B.C.
aged about 22 years, R/o Vill. Karai, post-Pahu, the.
Hindaun City, Dist. Karauli, Rajasthan
[3]
12. Surykant Chaudhary S/o Prem Singh Choudhary,
Cate. O.B.C. aged about 19 years, R/o VPO-
Jahangirpur, Teh. Karauli, Dist. Karauli, Rajasthan
13. Suman Goyal S/o Sohan Lal, Cate. O.B.C. Aged
about 26 years, R/o Kirana Marchent, Subhash Marg,
Bilara, Dist. Jodhpur, Rajasthan
14. Jagadish Singh Rao S/o Lal Singh Rao, Cate.
O.B.C. Aged about 24 years, R/o Vill. Falabara, Post
Malana, the. Garhi, P.O. Malana, Dist. Banswara
Versus
RESPONDENTS :
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Rural
Development and Panchayati Raj Department,
Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Secretary, Department of Personnel,
Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
3. National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE),
[4]
Hans Bhawan, Wing-II, 1, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi through its Secretary
4. The Director, Department of Elementary Education,
Bikaner
5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jalore,
(Rajasthan)
6. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dholpur,
(Rajasthan)
7. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Alwar,
(Rajasthan)
8. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jodhpur,
(Rajasthan)
9. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Churu,
(Rajasthan)
10. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bikaner,
(Rajasthan)
[5]
11. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad,
Bharatpur, (Rajasthan)
12. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Karoli,
(Rajasthan)
13. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad,
Banswara, (Rajasthan)
Date of Order : 16.11.2016
HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR,J.
HON'BLE DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI,J.
Mr. Hanuman Singh Choudhary for the petitioner
Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, Additional Advocate General, with
Mr. Vikas Choudhary, for the respondent-State
Mr. Kuldeep Mathur for the respondent-NCTE
ORDER
-------
BY THE COURT :
This petition for writ is preferred to have the reliefs as follows :-
(A) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the relevant abovestated norms prescribed in notification dated 23.08.2010, guidelines dated 11.02.2011 and notification dated 29.07.2011 issued by the NCTE and further Rules of 2011 issued by the State [6] Government to the extent it do not consider the CTET conducted by the Central Government as eligibility qualification for the purpose of appointment to the post of Teacher Grade III (Level-I and II) may kindly be declared ultra vires as violation to Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the same may kindly be struck down.
(B) By an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents further be directed to consider CTET qualification of petitioners for appointment on post of teacher.
(C) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Teacher Grade-III and afford them appointment if otherwise they stand in merit.
The process of selection in question pertains to the year 2013. Precisely, the case of the petitioners is that as per the National Council for Teacher Education notification dated 23.08.2010, the minimum qualification required to be considered for appointment as Teacher includes a condition to have Teachers Eligibility Test Certificate, which is to be conducted by appropriate government in accordance with the guidelines framed by the Council.
[7]
According to learned counsel, the petitioners are having a qualifying certificate of Central Teachers Eligibility Test, but the Government of Rajasthan is not considering the same as an eligibility sufficient to be considered for appointment to Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service as well as to the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Service.
According to learned counsel, the schools where the petitioners are required to be employed are adhering syllabi prescribed by the Central Board of School Education and as such, there is no just and valid reason to differentiate the Central Teachers Eligibility Test vis-a-vis Rajasthan Teachers Eligibility Test.
Looking to the fact that the process of selection in question has already been completed, no relief as prayed for by the petitioners, i.e. to be considered for appointment, can be given in this petition for writ, we are not inclined to examine merits of the case as that would be nothing but an academic exercise.
The writ petition, hence, is dismissed by keeping the petitioners at liberty to challenge the provision in question as and when occasion arises [8] afresh. The petitioners shall be at liberty to address all the facts and grounds taken in the instant matter, if any need arises to file a fresh petition for writ.
No order as to costs.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J. (GOVIND MATHUR),J. Pramod