Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Manisha Arya D/O Shri Bhagwaddayal vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 February, 2022
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 201/2021
Manisha Arya D/o Shri Bhagwaddayal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Village Jahanpuri Tehsil Kotkasim, District Alwar
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Education Department, Rajasthan, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through
Secretary.
3. Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Rohil Khand University, Bareilly
(Uttar Pradesh) Through Registrar.
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 478/2021
Pramila Kumari D/o Shri Anandi Lal, W/o Shri Sandeep Kumar
Devthiya, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Ward No. 7, Village And Post
Indrapura, Tehsil Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Education Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur
2. Director Sanskrit Education, Rajasthan, Iind Floor, Block-
6, Shiksha Sankul, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ghoogra Ghati,
Jaipur Road, Ajmer Through Its Secretary
----Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 509/2021
Rachna Dixit D/o Shri Pramod Kumar Sharma, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Swaraj Chemical Industries, Riico, Hindaun City,
District Karauli.
----Appellant
Versus
1. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through
(Downloaded on 19/02/2022 at 09:38:43 PM)
(2 of 6) [SAW-201/2021]
Secretary, Jaipur Road, Ajmer.
2. Dungar Singh Rathore S/o Shri Madhu Singh Rathore,
Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village Dabkudia, District
Rajsamand
3. Bhaskar Chauhan S/o Shri Nand Kishore Chauhan, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o Bai, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District
Sikar
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ved Pal Shastri
Mr. Sanjay Mehla
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ganesh Meena, AAG
Mr. Chandra Shekhar through VC
Mr. Rupesh Jain for
Mr. Amit Lubhaya- RPSC
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
Reserved on February 10th, 2022
Pronounced on February 17th, 2022
By the Court: (Per Hon'ble Bansal, J)
1. Since all these special appeals raise a common issue therefore, the same are being decided by this common order.
2. All these three Special Appeals have been filed by appellants challenging orders passed by learned Single Judge dismissing their writ petitions filed against rejection of their candidature for appointment to the post of Lecturer Sanskrit (Sahitya/ General Vyakaran) by respondent RPSC.
3. Learned counsel for appellants submit that the petitioners possess the degree of Master of Arts (Sanskrit). They were eligible for appointment to the post of Lecturer (Sanskrit), as the same should have been treated to be equivalent to Shastri/ Acharya, respondent authorities have committed gross illegality in rejecting (Downloaded on 19/02/2022 at 09:38:44 PM) (3 of 6) [SAW-201/2021] the candidature of appellants for the post in issue. Learned Single Judge failed to correct this error and therefore impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set aside and appellants should be considered on merits for appointment to the post of School Lecturer (Sanskrit).
4. Facts of the case are that Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) issued advertisement No.10/17-18 dated 29.03.2018 for the post of School Lecturer (Sanskrit) in General Vyakaran and Sahitya. Requisite educational qualifications for the post of School Lecturer (Sanskrit) is mentioned as "Shastri or equivalent traditional Sanskrit examination with Sanskrit Medium and Second Class Acharya degree or equivalent Sanskrit Medium examination in the concerned subject having minimum 48 marks with Shiksha Shastri degree or equivalent" which is in accordance with qualification mentioned at serial No.6 of schedule of Rajasthan Sanskrit Educational State and Subordinate Service (School) Rules, 2015. Appellants applied for the post of School Lecturer (Sanskrit) in General Vyakaran/ Sahitya claiming that they possessed the educational qualification of Master of Arts (Sanskrit) and their case is that the degree of Master of Arts (Sanskrit) should be treated as equivalent to Acharya (Sahitya)/ Acharya (General Vyakaran). Since RPSC did not consider the degree of Master of Arts (Sanskrit) as requisite qualification for appointment on the post of School Lecturer (Sanskrit) (General Vyakaran/ Sahitya), rejected application forms of appellants. Appellants preferred writ petitions assailing rejection of their candidature alleging inter alia that their degree of Master of Arts (Sanskrit) should be treated as equivalent to the degree of Acharya (Sahitya/ General Vyakaran). They submitted that in (Downloaded on 19/02/2022 at 09:38:44 PM) (4 of 6) [SAW-201/2021] Master of Arts (Sanskrit) they have passed subjects of Vyakaran and Sahitya, hence, are eligible for appointment to the post of School Lecturer (Sanskrit) in General Vyakaran as also Sahitya. Learned Single Judge dismissed their writ petitions holding that degree of Master of Arts (Sanskrit) possessed by appellants does not mention that same was obtained in Sanskrit Medium which is mandatory requirement for appointment on the post of School Lecturer (Sanskrit) in General Vyakaran/ Sahitya. Learned Single Judge observed that degree of Acharya is specially a degree awarded in Vyakaran and Sahitya in Sanskrit Medium, therefore, the degree of appellants of Master of Arts (Sanskrit) cannot be considered as equivalent degree of Acharya (General Vyakaran/ Sahitya) in Sanskrit Medium. Thus, feeling aggrieved by rejection of candidature by RPSC and dismissal of their writ petitions, appellants have preferred these special appeals.
5. Learned counsel for respondents has submitted that it is for the rule making authority to prescribe the qualification for recruitment and courts should not interfere with the qualifications prescribed by such authority as has been held by the Apex Court in Secretary Board of Basic Education, UP Vs. Rajendra Singh [2009 (17) SCC 452]. It has been further submitted that post in issue advertised was Lecturer Sahitya/ Vyakaran of Sanskrit subject whereas appellants having degree of Master of Arts (Sanskrit) cannot claim to be equivalent for the post and their candidatures have been rightly rejected. Similarly, a candidate applying for the post of Lecturer (Sahitya) cannot claim appointment to the post of Lecturer (Vyakaran). Learned counsel has pointed out the syllabus of Acharya in General Vyakaran/ Sahitya is different from syllabus of Master of Arts (Sanskrit). He (Downloaded on 19/02/2022 at 09:38:44 PM) (5 of 6) [SAW-201/2021] has pointed out the post of School Lecturer (Sanskrit) in General Vyakaran/ Sahitya are meant to teach students a particular Sanskrit subject minutely in Sanskrit medium only. He has also pointed out examinations of Master of Arts (Sanskrit) are required to be held 20% in Sanskrit medium only and rest in other medium, and as such according to respondents there is a wider difference in syllabus of both degrees.
6. During pendency of these special appeals Rohilkhand University, Bareilly, from where appellants have obtained their degree of Master of Arts (Sanskrit) was also made a party as respondent No.3. The University has verified the degrees of Master of Arts (Sanskrit) issued to appellants. In response thereto, the State Government has clarified that University has verified the degrees of appellants on the basis of report from Principal of Hindu College, Moradabad, but it has not clarified the syllabus and scheme of examinations for Master of Arts (Sanskrit).
7. Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the material available on record.
8. It appears from the reply of the State Government they have enquired into syllabus and scheme of examination of Master of Arts (Sanskrit) from the University and it has been found that the candidate can answer questions in Hindi, English and Sanskrit medium. Whereas in the syllabus of Acharya (Sahitya/ General Vyakaran) particular subject of Sanskrit is essential. As such the syllabus of Acharya (Sahitya/ General Vyakaran) gives a minute knowledge of particular subject Sanskrit and that too in Sanskrit medium. The recruitment rules prescribe a particular qualification of having the degree of Acharya (Sahitya/ General Vyakaran) in special subject for the purpose of appointment on the post of (Downloaded on 19/02/2022 at 09:38:44 PM) (6 of 6) [SAW-201/2021] School Lecturer (Sanskrit), and the degree of Master of Arts (Sanskrit) does not meet out with such eligibility. Therefore, learned Single Judge has rightly declined to treat the degree of Master of Arts (Sanskrit) as equivalent to the degree of Acharya (Sahitya/ General Vyakaran) so as to hold appellants eligible for appointment to the post of School Lecturer (Sanskrit).
9. It is settled proposition of law that it is for the rule making authority to prescribe the qualification for recruitment and the issue of equivalence also can properly be considered by the appointing authority and courts should not interfere with such exercise of the appointing authority as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Singh (Supra). Accordingly, we find no error in dismissing writ petitions by learned Single Judge, so also in rejecting candidature of appellants by the RPSC. Accordingly, the special appeals are dismissed.
10. All pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ
NITIN /48-50
(Downloaded on 19/02/2022 at 09:38:44 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)