Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rahul Kumar Jain & Anr vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 5 March, 2018
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16532 / 2017
1. Rahul Kumar Jain Son of Shri Babu Lal Jain, Aged About 29
Years, By Caste Jain, Resident of Village Chhani, Tehsil-
Khairwada, District- Udaipur.
2. Subham Jain Son of Bharat Kumar Jain, Aged About 24 Years,
By Caste Jain, Resident of Village Lohariya Tehsil- Garhi, District
Banswara.
----Petitioners
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, Directorate of Elementary Education, Government of
Rajasthan, Bikaner.
4. Zila Parishad, Udaipur Through the Chief Executive Officer.
5. Zila Parishad, Banswara Through Its Chief Executive Officer.
6. Zila Parishad, Pratapgarh Through the Chief Executive Officer.
7. Zila Parishad, Dungarpur Through the Chief Executive Officer.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Ramdev Potalia
For Respondent(s) : Ms.Deepika Purohit for Mr.P.R.Singh AAG
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 05/03/2018
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:-
"a. by an appropriate writ, order or direction, this petition may kindly be allowed with costs with the (2 of 6) [CW-16532/2017] direction to the respondents declare the result of Subject Science separately viz. Maths and Science and also separate the number of vacant posts advertised in Maths and Science Subject.
b. by an appropriate writ, order or direction, without including the petitioners in the selection process of Teacher Grade III (Level II) in Maths separately pursuant to the amended notification as well as earlier notification, the process of selection (Annex.8 and 9) and any appointment order in favour of the selected candidates of Teacher Grade III (Level II) in Subject Science Maths in reference to amended notification dated 11.09.2017 (Annex.6) may kindly be set aside and quashed.
c. by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to issue separate cut off marks for Maths and Science and accordingly considering the candidature of the petitioners, their name be included in the list of selected candidates and according consider his candidature for whole of the selection process and he may be called fro submitting the application form with documents in hard copy and for verification of documents and allotment of district and in counseling.
d. by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to issue cut off marks upto the extent of candidates three times to the advertised vacancies and selection for subject Maths be made amongst these three times candidates.
e. by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the condition of calculating the marks for preparing merit by adopting the method 30% of marks from graduation and 70% of marks from RTET/REET and be directed to adopt the criteria and condition as laid (3 of 6) [CW-16532/2017] down in the notification issued initially in the year 2016.
f. by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the petitioners may kindly be included in the selection process of recruitment under heading "Rajasthan Primary and Upper Primary School Teacher Direct Recruitment-2016 and consider his higher marks in merit, he may be given appointment as Teacher Grade III (Level II) with all consequential benefits.
g. Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deemed just and proper be passed in favour of the petitioner.
h. Costs of this writ petition may kindly be allowed to the petitioners."
2. The petitioners have participated in the selection process initiated pursuant to the advertisement dated 06.07.2016 for the post of Teacher Grade III Level II for Subject Science- Maths in the TSP Area.
3. The parameters and criteria of the advertisement were affected by the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Sher Singh & Ors. Vs. Dinesh Singh & Ors. (D.B.Special Appeal Writ No.1464/2016 decided on 27.04.2017).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since Subjects of Maths and Science are being treated as having separate qualifications, therefore, vacant posts ought to be separately identified and after fresh identification of such posts, a separate merit list ought to be published by the respondents.
(4 of 6) [CW-16532/2017]
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that since Rule 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 was amended, whereby separate qualifications were laid down for the Teachers of Science and Maths, therefore, the selection process ought to have been continued with separate merit list and separate select list for both the Subjects.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents has passed on to this Court the policy decision taken by the State on 30.10.2017, which reads as under:-
"d s k;kZy; funs'kd izkjafHkd f'k{kk jktLFkku chdkusj Øekad%f'kfojk@izkja@fu;qizdks@fu;q&2@982@VhthVh&2016@ys&2@2016&17 fnukad 30-10-2017 jktLFkku izkFkfed ,oa mPp izkFkfed fo|ky; v/;kid lh/kh HkrhZ&2016 ¼la'kksf/kr½ fo"k;& r`rh; Js.kh v/;kid HkrhZ 2016 ¼la'kksf/kr½ ysoy f}rh; ds fy, tkjh foKkiu la[;k 01@2017 o 02@2017 fnukad 11-09-2017 esa foKkfir foKku&xf.kr esa inksa ls laca/k esaA xzkeh.k fodkl o iapk;r jkt foHkkx jktLFkku t;iqj ds }kjk tkjh vf/klwpuk fnukad 29-08-2017 las iapk;r jkt fu;e 1996 ds fu;e 266 esa la'kks/ku dj r`rh; Js.kh v/;kid ysoy f}rh; xf.kr o foKku fo"k; v/;kid HkrhZ gsrq vyx vyx 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk;s fu/kkZfjr dh xbZ gSaA fu'kqYd ,oa vfuok;Z f'k{kk vf/kfu;e 2009 dh /kkjk 19 dh vuqlwph esa of.kZr izko/kku ds vuqlkj izkjafHkd f'k{kk varxZr d{kk 6 ls 8 ds v/;kidksa ds fy;s foKku o xf.kr dh ,d gh bZdkbZ ekudj foKku xf.kr dk dkWeu in fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS o jkT; ljdkj ds vkns'k Øekad i-5 ¼8½ izkf'k@2016 t;iqj fnukad 21-04-2016 esa r`rh;
Js.kh v/;kid ysoy f}rh; esa foKku xf.kr dk dkWeu in Lohd`r fd;k x;k gS rFkk ek/;fed f'k{kk cksMZ }kjk vkjVhvkbZ ,DV ds vUrxZr gh vk;ksftr v/;kid ik=rk ijh{kk esa foKku xf.kr dh bZdkbZ ekudj ijh{kk vk;ksftr dh xbZ@djokbZ tk jgh gSA (5 of 6) [CW-16532/2017] izkjafHkd f'k{kk foHkkx }kjk jktLFkku izkFkfed o mPp izkFkfed fo|ky; esa ¼la'kksf/kr½ ysoy f}rh; gsrq foKkiu la[;k 01@2017 o 02@2017 fnukad 10-09-2017 dj xSj vuqlwfpr {ks= o vuqlwfpr {ks= gsrq i`Fkd i`Fkd vkosnu i= vkeaf=r fd;k x;kA bl HkrhZ esa ysoy f}rh; ds r`rh; Js.kh v/;kid foKku xf.kr ds dkWeu in foKkfir x;sA vr% r`rh; Js.kh v/;kid ysoy f}rh; dh foKku xf.kr dh HkrhZ ds fy, fjDr in gsrq mDr of.kZr fLFkfr;ksa ds vuqlkj xf.kr o foKku nksuksa fo"k; oxZ dh ;ksX;rk vk'kkFkhZ foKfIr ds fcUnq la[;k 6-1ch ds vuqlkj vkosnu djus ds ik= gksaxs ,oa foKku xf.kr v/;kid in gsrq dkWeu ofj;rk rS;kj dh tk;sxhA ,lMh& funs'kd izkjafHkd f'k{kk] jktLFkku] chdkusj"
7. Learned counsel for the respondents states that since from the time of advertisement, the Subjects of Science and Maths were considered to be common, and particularly, condition No.6.1(B) of the advertisement required a common merit list for the Subject of Science and Maths, therefore, inspite of the amendment in the Rules of 1996, preparation of a common merit list was the policy decision of the respondents.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents has further stated that the aforesaid policy decision is not under challenge by the petitioners, and since it has been commonly applied for all the candidates, therefore, no prejudice has been caused to one of the candidates.
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that preparation of a common merit list in respect of Subjects of (6 of 6) [CW-16532/2017] Science and Maths was the result of a common determination of vacancies in the advertisement issued in the year 2016.
10. Since the advertisement was very clear in its conditions that the recruitment for the post of Teachers of Science and Maths shall be done as a common head, therefore, the policy decision taken by the State, to have a common merit list alongwith a common post structure, is justified. Moreover, the policy decision taken by the State is uniform for all the candidates and does not cause any prejudice to the petitioners.
11. This Court further finds that the effect of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Sher Singh & Ors. Vs. Dinesh Singh & Ors. (supra) was only to the extent of prescribing the educational qualifications for the persons seeking appointment as Science and Maths Teachers, but such separate qualifications for being eligible to be appointed as Maths Teacher or Science Teacher would not prejudice the petitioners, as they shall be ultimately treated as eligible candidates, if they are eligible in either of the streams. Once the person is eligible in either of the streams, then preparation of a common merit against a common structured post of Science Maths Teacher Grade III Level II is quite justified.
12. In view of the above, no interference is called for in the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J. Skant/-