Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vijeta Singh Tanwer vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 1 September, 2017
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9534 / 2017
Vijeta Singh Tanwar S/o Shri Man Singh Tanwar, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Dhan Nadi, Balupura Road, Near Railway Underbridge,
Ajmer(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Rural
Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Primary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. Zila Parishad, Chittorgarh Through Its Chief Executive Officer.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendra Singh and Mr. Khet Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Joshi
_____________________________________________________
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Judgment
01/09/2017
By way of the present writ petition, petitioner has laid
challenge to rejection of her candidature by the respondents for
appointment on the post of Teacher Grade - III, Level - I interalia
on the ground that the petitioner had obtained Basic School
Teacher Certificate (BSTC) subsequent to clearing Rajasthan
Teachers' Eligibility Test (RTET).
Facts necessary for the adjudication of the present case are
that the petitioner applied for appointment on the post of Teacher
(2 of 5)
[ CW-9534/2017]
Grade - III, Level - I pursuant to the advertisement dated
06.07.2016 issued by the respondents. The petitioner was
declared successful and was called for document verification.
During the document verification her candidature has been
rejected by the respondents interalia observing that the petitioner
completed her Basic School Teacher Certificate (BSTC) Course on
12.05.2012, whereas she had cleared Rajasthan Teachers'
Eligibility Test (RTET) on 28.02.2011.
Learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the petitioner's
rejection contended that the same is ex-facie illegal and against
the condition of the advertisement itself. It will not be out of place
to reproduce the reason ascribed for holding the petitioner
ineligible :-
1 5004 710000963 Vijeta Singh Tanwer ch,lVhlh 12-05-2012 dh ,oa vkj-VsV-
ijh{kk 28-02-2011 dks mRrh.kZ djus ls
Learned counsel invited attention of this Court towards
Clause No.6.8 of the advertisement, which reads as under :-
^^6-8 vH;FkhZ }kjk vkosnu izLrqr djus dh vfUre fnukad rd
lHkh U;wure ;ksX;rk,¡ ¼"kS{kf.kd] iz"kS{kf.kd ,oa jktLFkku v/;kid
ik=rk ijh{kk½ vftZr djuk vfuok;Z gSAa **
(3 of 5)
[ CW-9534/2017]
Mr. Khet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner invited
attention of this Court towards the requisite eligibility criteria for
Rajasthan Teacher Eligibility Test, which reads thus :-
^^"kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk,¡%
f"k{kk ds vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e dk mi Hkkx ¼1½ ds 23oas Hkkx ds vUrxZr fu"kqYd
,oa vfuok;Z f"k{kk vf/kfu;e 2009 ds vUrxZr jk'Vªh; v/;kid f"k{kk ifj'kn~ dks
vf/klwpuk fnuakd 23 vxLr 2010 ekin.Mkuqlkj jktLFkku v/;kid ik=rk ijh{kk
2011 esa lfEefyr gksus gsrq ;ksX;rk,¡ ,oa U;wure vad izfr'kr fofHkUu oxksZa ds fy,
fuEukuqlkj gksx%sa &
1- U;wure ;ksX;rk & Lrj & izFke ¼d{kk I-V½
¼d½ U;wure 50 izfr'kr vadksa ds lkFk mPprj ek/;fed ¼;k blds
led{k½ ,oa izkjafHkd f"k{kk "kkL= esa f}o'khZ; fMIyksek ¼ftl uke ls Hkh tkuk tkrk
gks½A
;k
U;wure 45 izfr"kr vadks ds lkFk mPprj ek/;fed ¼;k blds led{k½ ,oa izkjafHkd
f"k{kk "kkL= esa f}o'khZ; fMIyksek ¼ftl uke ls Hkh tkuk tkrk gks½] tks jk'Vªh;
v/;kid f"k{kk ifj'kn~ ¼ekU;rk ekud vkSj fØ;kfof/k½ fofu;e 2002 ds vuqlkj izkIr
fd;k x;k gksA
;k
U;wure 50 izfr'kr vadksa ds lkFk mPprj ek/;fed ¼;k blds led{k½ ,oa 4 o'khZ;
izkjafHkd f"k{kk "kkL= Lukrd ¼ch-,y-,M-½
;k
(4 of 5)
[ CW-9534/2017]
U;wure 50 izfr'kr vadksa ds lkFk mPprj ek/;fed ¼;k blds led{k½ ,oa f"k{kk
"kkL= esa f}o'khZ; fMIyksek ¼fo"ks'k f"k{kk½
;k
,sls vH;FkhZ ftudk mijksDr ikB~;Øe esa izo's k gks pqdk gS vFkkZr~ tks vH;FkhZ bu
ikB~;Øeksa esa v/;;ujr gSa os Hkh vkosnu dj ldrs gSaA**
Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter invited attention
of this Court towards the circular dated 23.03.2011 issued by the
State Government whereby it has been clarified that the
candidates who have got themselves enrolled for Rajasthan
Teachers' Eligibility Test (RTET) shall be eligible for appointment in
wake of the guidelines issued by the NCTE on 11.02.2011.
Mr. Sunil Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents
supported the stand of the State and submitted that the
petitioner's candidature has been rightly rejected inasmuch as the
persons having cleared Rajasthan Teachers' Eligibility Test (RTET)
prior to completion of the Basic School Teacher Certificate Course
(BSTC) cannot be said to be fully eligible. According to him
completion of Rajasthan Teachers' Eligibility Test (RTET) before
obtaining the Basic School Teacher Certificate (BSTC) is like
clearing Graduation before the Senior Secondary.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after
perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the stand of the respondents is not only illegal but also contrary to
(5 of 5)
[ CW-9534/2017]
the condition of the advertisement and circular dated 23.03.2011
issued by the State Government.
A perusal of the condition No.6.8 of the advertisement, the
eligibility condition of RTET examination and so also the circular
dated 23.03.2011 issued by the State Government leaves no room
for ambiguity that a person can very well clear Rajasthan Teachers
Eligibility Test (RTET) before completion of his/her Basic School
Teacher Certificate (BSTC) Course.
In view of the above, rejection of petitioner's candidature
(Annex.12) is illegal, for which it is quashed and set aside. The
respondents are directed to give suitable appointment to the
petitioner, within a period of six weeks from today.
The petition stands allowed.
(DINESH MEHTA), J.
Anurag/38