Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Laxmi Parihar vs State Of Rajasthan (2023/Rjjd/006160) on 2 March, 2023
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2023/RJJD/006160] (1 of 5) [CW-3230/2023]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3230/2023
Laxmi Parihar W/o Ladu Ram Parihar, Aged About 51 Years,
Residing At Kamboi Fali, Vaaloriya, Sirohi, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Education
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. The Director (Primary Education) Education Department,
Bikaner
3. The Joint Director (Primary Education), Sirohi Division,
Sirohi
4. Gram Panchayat Vaaloriya, Panchayat Samiti Pindwara,
Sirohi
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Laxmi Parihar
(present in person)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG a/w
Mr. Rishi Soni
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 02/03/2023 The lawyers are abstaining from the work.
Mr. Pankaj Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General fairly submits that controversy involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by Jaipur Bench of this Court in Gouri Shankar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15309/2010), decided on 11.05.2017, the order reads as follows:-
(Downloaded on 03/03/2023 at 11:39:28 PM)[2023/RJJD/006160] (2 of 5) [CW-3230/2023] "Learned counsel for the parties are not in dispute that the identical controversy was raised herein, has been considered and adjudicated upon by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, in a batch of writ applications lead case being SBCWP No. 1594/2009: Baboo Lal Meena & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 22nd February, 2010.
In the case of Baboo Lal Meena (supra), on a consideration of the controversy identical to one raised herein, the Coordinate Bench of this Court held thus:
"It is not in dispute that the required qualification for the post of Prabodhak is Senior Secondary Certificate + BSTC or Graduation + B.Ed. The petitioners are claiming that they are having course of BAP which is equivalent to the course of Senior Secondary, however, they are possessing BSTC certificate. If it is held that Senior Secondary certificate and BAP certificate are equivalent to each other and they are treated to be so by the State Government for the purpose of giving appointment in service, then the petitioners become eligible for the post. However, it is also relevant that the petitioners were already given appointment on the post of Prabodhak and their appointments have been cancelled by the impugned orders on the ground that according to the respondents, the petitioners since had no certificate of senior secondary, therefore, they are not eligible and the petitioners have challenged that order of cancellation of their appointment on the ground of equivalence of BAP certificate with Senior Secondary Certificate as well as on the ground that once appointment is given, that cannot be cancelled in the manner in which it has been done and the petitioners did not suppress this fact from the employer while obtaining appointment.
The admitted facts are that the State Government itself accepted BAP certificate for the purpose of giving admission to the BSTC course run by the State Government itself and recognised for the purpose of appointment on the post of Prabodhak which is clear from the notice issued for (Downloaded on 03/03/2023 at 11:39:28 PM) [2023/RJJD/006160] (3 of 5) [CW-3230/2023] giving appointment on the post of Prabodhak, then the degree of graduation can be awarded to the persons who possess or obtain the Senior Secondary Certificate recognised by the University concerned and in the State of Rajasthan, in all the universities, only the candidates who have senior secondary certificate, are admitted to the graduation course including in Kota Open University. There may be difference in the two courses - BAP and Senior Secondary. The petitioners are not relying upon the BAP course alone but they are having requisite certificate of BSTC which is a higher certificate and which is awarded only after completion of the course of senior secondary and in view of the Government order dated 9.5.2002, after completion of BAP. The Government itself has treated the BAP course equivalent to senior secondary and, therefore, only allowed the candidates having BAP course as eligible candidates for the course of BSTC. In view of the above reason of the BAP course being equivalent for obtaining degree of graduation and to the course of BSTC, the BAP course appears to be equivalent to the certificate of Senior Secondary. The RPSC is also recognising BAP course as equivalent to senior secondary while giving appointment to the post of Teacher Grade- III where the basic qualification is Senior Secondary as stated by learned counsel for the petitioners which is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondents, rather say, admitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, therefore, in these matters where the appointments have been cancelled of the petitioners on the ground of nonequivalence of BAP with senior secondary is concerned, the respondents have failed to justify their action of treating BAP course to be not equal to senior secondary.
At this juncture, it will be relevant to observe that in Suja Ram's case, the State did not decide about the equivalence of BAP course with senior secondary as well as there was no material before the bench that two courses were equivalent or treated as equivalent by the State Government itself. The fact situation in the present cases are (Downloaded on 03/03/2023 at 11:39:28 PM) [2023/RJJD/006160] (4 of 5) [CW-3230/2023] entirely different and this Court cannot ignore the fact that the same bench has already entertained the writ petition and issued notice to the respondents even after deciding the case of Suja Ram. The respondents in their reply failed to show any justification for not treating this course of BAP as equivalent with the senior secondary when they themselves have treated it to be equivalent to senior secondary for the purpose of higher studies. Kota Open University is also an University recognised under the UGC and when even a graduate degree by University and when the State itself recognises BAP course for the purpose of grant of another degree treating it to be equivalent to senior secondary, then the equivalence can be determined on the basis of the facts placed on record as well as which are not substantially in dispute.
In view of the above reasons, the removal of the petitioners of writ petitions no.1594/2009, 1595/2009 and 1596/2009 on the ground of nonequivalence of BAP course with senior secondary cannot be justified, hence, the orders of termination of the petitioners are quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioners with all consequential benefits except the back wages in consequence of this order.
In SB Civil Writ Petition No.8814/2008, the petitioner Ram Narayan Choudhary was called for interview but according to the petitioner, he has been denied appointment only on the ground that BAP course is not equivalent to Senior Secondary examination.
Since it has been held that the course of BAP is equivalent to the course of senior secondary, therefore, the denial of appointment to the petitioner on this ground cannot be justified. The respondents are, therefore, directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Prabodhak and give him appointment if he is otherwise found eligible.
With the aforesaid directions and observations, all these writ petitions are allowed."
Learned counsel for the respondent No.6 - Vardhman Mahaveer Open University, Kota, made a (Downloaded on 03/03/2023 at 11:39:28 PM) [2023/RJJD/006160] (5 of 5) [CW-3230/2023] statement at Bar that a Certificate issued to the petitioner of having qualified the examination of Bachelor of Arts Preparatory Course (BAP), is genuine which has been placed on record as Annexure - 3.
In view of the above, the instant writ application stands disposed off in terms of the case of Baboo Lal Meena (supra). Consequently, order dated 8th November, 2019 (Annexure-2), is hereby quashed.
Consequential benefits accruing thereupon would be admissible on notional basis.
Stay application stands closed."
In light of the aforequoted order, the present writ petition is disposed of on the same terms. However, the name of the petitioner be included in the order dated 15.02.2023, if she is otherwise found eligible.
The office is directed to take on record the reply submitted by learned AAG.
All pending applications also stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 108-Sudheer/-
(Downloaded on 03/03/2023 at 11:39:28 PM)Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)