Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhakhara Ram Panwar vs . R.P.S.C. & Anr. on 18 September, 2014
Author: Vineet Kothari
Bench: Vineet Kothari
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4641/2013.
Bhakhara Ram Panwar Vs. R.P.S.C. & Anr.
Order dated 18/09/2014
1/8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR.
:: O R D E R ::
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4641/2013.
Bhakhara Ram Panwar Vs. R.P.S.C. & Anr.
Date of Order :::: 18th September, 2014.
PRESENT
HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
Appearance:
Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, for the petitioner.
Mr. Siddarth Joshi, for the respondent- RPSC.
--
BY THE COURT:
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition on 27.04.2013 seeking following relief/s: -
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed with cost and by and appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned letter dated 22.03.2013 (Annex.10) may kindly be quashed and set aside and respondents may kindly be directed to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of P.T.I. Grade-III as he stands in the merit list with all consequential benefits.
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4641/2013. Bhakhara Ram Panwar Vs. R.P.S.C. & Anr.
Order dated 18/09/2014 2/8 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 passed in favour of the petitoner.
Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner."
3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order (Annex.10) dated 22.03.2013 whereby his candidature for appointment on the post of P.T.I. Grade-III has been rejected on the ground that the qualification possessed by the petitioner of B.P. Ed., which he obtained from Nagpur University, is not recognized by the State Government and, therefore, he was eligible to be appointed as such.
4. Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Hari Ram & 16 Ors. reported in 2001 (1) WLC (Raj.) 124 and in the case of Manju Kumari Vs. State & Ors. reported in 2014 (3) WLC (Raj.) 374, has submitted that the qualification of B.P. Ed. course has been treated as equivalent to Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Commerce and other graduations and, therefore, rejection of petitioner's candidature was wrong and the same is liable to be interfered with in the present writ petition.
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4641/2013.
Bhakhara Ram Panwar Vs. R.P.S.C. & Anr.
Order dated 18/09/2014 3/8
5. On the other hand, Mr. Siddarth Joshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent- RPSC, has relied upon the recent judgment of Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of DBSAW No.601/2014- Manoj Kumar Verma Vs. RPSC, Ajmer & Ors. (decided on 22.08.2014), wherein the Division Bench held as under: -
"The NCTE Act was enacted in terms of Entries 65 and 66 of the List I and having fixed the norms and qualification for recruitment of teachers, it is not open to the State Government to fix any qualification contrary to those laid down by the NCTE. All the States are supposed to modify/frame recruitment rules in conformity with the qualifications prescribed in the Schedule. Regulation 4 mandates that the existing recruitment rules may be modified within three years so as to bring them in conformity with the qualification prescribed in the Schedules.
In the present case, on the enforcement of the NCTE Regulations, 2001, prescribing qualification for teachers including Physical Education Teachers, the Rules of 1971 framed by the State of Rajasthan were required to be amended. The Schedule in the NCTE Regulations, 2001, quoted as above, does not prescribe B.P.E. as qualification for PTI Grade-II and Grade-III for teaching in schools/high schools and Senior S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4641/2013. Bhakhara Ram Panwar Vs. R.P.S.C. & Anr.
Order dated 18/09/2014 4/8 Secondary Schools, where physical education is an elective subject. For Secondary/High Schools, Graduates with Bachelor of Physical Education (B.P.E Ed.), or its equivalent, is the requisite qualification. The appellant possess B.P.E., which is a degree course in Physical Education. He did not pursue the degree course in Physical Education (B.P. Ed.) after doing graduation. He, therefore, does not hold the requisite qualification for appointment as PTI Grade-II or even PTI Grade-III. His contention that he had taken admission in B.P.E. course in 1994 and passed out in 1997, does not hold him eligible, as he was seeking recruitment in the schools in Rajasthan in pursuance of the advertisement issued, after the NCTE Regulations, 2001 came into force.
For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any error of law in the judgment of the learned Single Judge to cause any interference in this Special Appeal.
The Special Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J. (SUNIL AMBWANI, Actg. C.J."
6. Learned counsel for the respondent- RPSC also submitted that the petitioner has not done the B.P. Ed. course after graduation but after passing the 12th standard exmaination only, and the same being a two years course, its equivalence cannot be assumed as B.A./B. Com., a 3 years' course and the S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4641/2013.
Bhakhara Ram Panwar Vs. R.P.S.C. & Anr.
Order dated 18/09/2014 5/8 same being not a prescribed qualification for PTI Grade-II and PTI Grade-III as per NCTE Regulations, 2001, therefore, in view of recent judgment of Division Bench in the case of Manoj Kumar (supra), the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. This Court also earlier in the case of Nirmala Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.C.W.P. No.906/2013, decided on 18.11.2013) while deciding a batch of 7 writ petitions, and dealing with similar controversy of B.P.E. done and B.P. Ed., from outside the State of Rajasthan, has held as under: -
"6. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is, therefore, of little help to the petitioners. The fixation of the qualification is in the discretion and domain of the employer, State Government. Neither RPSC, much-less this Court, can substitute its own wisdom or discretion in the matter and it is for the employer alone to prescribe the qualification in the matter. Admittedly, the petitioners do not possess the prescribed qualification in the present case of B.P. Ed., D.P. Ed. or C.P. Ed. They want something (BPE) degree which they possess, to be treated at par with the prescribed qualification of B.P. Ed., which in the opinion of this Court, cannot be done by this Court in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4641/2013. Bhakhara Ram Panwar Vs. R.P.S.C. & Anr.
Order dated 18/09/2014 6/8 Article 226 of the Constitution of India as no sufficient material is available on record to compare the contents of Course undergone by the petitioners and the contents of the Course prescribed as minimum qualification by the respondent- State Government. If, however, the petitioners have any grievance in the mater, and they want their degree/s of B.P.E. be treated at par with the prescribed qualification of B.P. Ed., it is a matter of representation to be made by them before the competent authority of the State Government, who fixes such minimum qualification. Upon a comparative analysis of two courses, if the State Government itself comes to the conclusion that two courses are similar and they can include the B.P.E. Degree-holders also within the consideration of zone, then it is for the State Government to decide on such representation of the petitioners. However, this selection process under the Advertisement (Annex.7) dated 14.12.2011, which is said to have been already completed, cannot be affected of such representation and decision thereon by the competent authority of the State Government. It is for the future such vacancies that such consideration at the end of the State Government, can be made and which is the only appropriate remedy for the present petitioners.
7. In view of this, the present writ petitions S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4641/2013. Bhakhara Ram Panwar Vs. R.P.S.C. & Anr.
Order dated 18/09/2014 7/8 are disposed of with liberty and direction to the petitioners to approach the State Government in this regard by way of representation with the details of two curriculum of B.P.E. and B.P. Ed. Courses and urge the State Government for seeking appropriate relief for future vacancies. It is expected of the State Government to pass appropriate orders on such representations and dispose of such representations by a speaking order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners within a period of three months from today. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the respondents forthwith, however, the certified copy be issued to the petitioners, who have filed joint writ petitions, subject to the payment of Court Fee of Rs.25/- for each of the petitioners in the batch of cases, as they have separate cause for each one of them, even though point involved is common and, therefore, filing of joint writ petition could be permitted but payment of minimum Court Fee by each one of them was necessary."
8. In view of this, prima facie, this Court is satisfied that the rejection of petitioner's candidature was justified. However, it is for the respondent State and the RPSC to decide the equivalence of the said course of B.P. Ed. and such question of equivalence of qualification cannot be determined in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4641/2013.
Bhakhara Ram Panwar Vs. R.P.S.C. & Anr.
Order dated 18/09/2014 8/8
9. Therefore, while dismissing the present writ petition, the petitioner is left free with a liberty to file suitable representation before the competent authority in this regard, who is expected to decide the same in accordance with law in view of aforesaid legal position cited supra. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith.
(Dr. VINEET KOTHARI), J.
DJ/-
21