Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Hanuman Ram And Anr. vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 22 July, 2003
Equivalent citations: RLW2004(2)RAJ1126, 2004(1)WLC285
JUDGMENT Garg, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondents on 18.11.98 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent be directed to consider the petitioner's candidature for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III in pursuance of advertisement dtd. 24.4.97 (Annex.1) with all consequential benefits.
2. The facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under:-
i) That the respondent No. 3 (Dist. Education Officer (Boys), Pali) published and advertisement dtd. 24.4.97 (Annex. 1) for certain posts of Teacher Grade III.
ii) Further case of the petitioners is that the petitioner belong to Other Backward Class which is evident from the certificate (Annex.2 and 3).
iii) That the petitioner No. 1 passed his Secondary School Examination in the year 1998 from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajas-than, Ajmer. A copy of the mark-sheet of Secondary Examination is marked as Annex.4. The petitioner No. 1 thereafter passed his Senior Higher Secondary examination in the year 1991 from the Board of Secondary Education. A copy of marksheet of Sr. Higher Secondary Education is marked as Annex.5, the petitioner No. 1 therefore passed his B.A. examination from the Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer. A copy of mark-sheet of B.A. examination is marked as Annex.6. The petitioner No. 1 thereafter obtained the degree of B.Ed. from Barkatullah Vishwa Vidhyalaya, Bhopal. A copy of mark-sheet of B.Ed. is marked as Annex.7.
iv) The petitioners No. 2 after passing the Sr. Higher Secondary examination obtained the degree of B.A. from the University of Ra-jasthan in the year 1987. A copy of mark-sheet of B.A. examination is marked as Annex.8. Thereafter the petitioner No. 2 passed B.Ed. (Correspondence) examination from Barkatullah Vishwa Vidhyalaya, Bhopal in the year 1995-96. A copy of marksheet of B.Ed. is marked as Annex.9.
vi) Further case of the petitioners is that they submitted their applications forms in pursuance of advertisement dtd. 24.4.97 (Annex. 1) to the office of respondent No. 3 (Dist.-Education Officer (Boys), Pali) and the petitioners were interviewed for the post of Teacher Grade III on 15.5.97.
vii) Further case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are possessing the higher qualification than the minimum required. However, the petitioners had completed B.Ed. Correspondence course from Barkatullah Vishwa Vidhyalaya, Bhopal and obtained B.Ed. degree from Barkatullah Vishwa Vidhyalaya, Bhopal.
viii) Further case of the petitioners is that no marks were assigned to the interview, but during interview the original testimonials of the candidates were verified, which was done in respect of the petitioners also on 15.5.97.
ix) Further case of the petitioners is that according to the policy of selection on the post of Teacher Grade III, the petitioner No. 1 was supposed to get 66.20% marks while the petitioner No. 2 was supposed to get 67.77% marks for the purpose of selection and appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III.
x) Further case of the petitioners is that the last candidate in OBC category who was appointed by the respondents in pursuance of advertisement dtd. 24.4.97 (Annex.1) on the post of Teacher Grade III had only 66.10% marks. Thus, less meritorious persons than the petitioners had been considered and had been appointed on the post of Teacher Grade III ignoring the petitioners.
xi) Further case of the petitioners is that on enquiry, the petitioners were told by the respondents that since they had obtained degree of B.Ed. from Barkuttalla Vishwa Vidhyalaya, Bhopal and recognition of that was under consideration, therefore, appointment was not offered to them. Hence, this writ petition with the abovementioned prayer.
3. In this writ petition the main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that this Court in the Case of Subodh Kumar Verma v. State of Rajasthan (1), has held that the degree of B.Ed. (Correspondence) obtained from Barkatullah Vishwa Vidhyalaya, Bhopal was recognized and hence the degree of B.Ed. obtained by the petitioners from Barkatullah Vishwa Vidhyalaya is recognized one for the purpose of appointment on the post of Teacher Grade HI and denial of appointment on that ground is erroneous and bad in law and the petitioners are entitled to appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III in pursuance of advertisement dtd. 24.4.97 (annex. 1) and hence this writ petition should be allowed.
4. Reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and their case is that the vacancies advertised vide advertisement dtd. 24.4.97 (Annex. 1) lapsed on 1.4.98 and on this ground alone the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. On the point of recognition of B.Ed. degree (correspondence) obtained from Barkatullah Vishwa Vidhyalaya, it has been submitted by the respondents that the State Government has not recognized the B.Ed. degree obtained from Barkatullah Vidhwavidhyalaya, Bhopal through Correspondence which is evident from the letter dtd. 18.2.92 (Annex.R/1) issued by the Director, Primary and Secondary Education, Bikaner in pursuance of Government order dtd. 6.2.92. Hence, writ petition be dismissed.
5. Heard and perused the record.
6. There is no dispute on the point that the petitioners obtained the B.Ed. Degree from Barkatullah Vishwa Vidhyalaya through correspondence.
7. There is also no dispute on the fact that the writ petition was filed on 18.11.98 and the vacancies advertised vide advertisement dtd. 24.4.97 (Annex. 1) lapsed on 1.4.98.
8. There is also no dispute on the point that this Court in the case of Subodh Kumar Verma (supra) held on 8.5.95 that the B.Ed. degree obtained from Barkatullah Vidhwavidhyalaya through correspondence was recognized and thus, the degree of B.Ed. obtained from Barkatullah Vidhwavidhyalaya through correspondence was treated as recognized even before the issuance of advertisement dtd. 24.4.97 (Annex. 1.).
9. In the case of Manish v. State of Rajasthan (2), decided on 12.2.98, this Court again held that the degree of B.Ed. obtained from Barkatullah Vidhwavidhyalaya through correspondence should be treated as recognized and the petitioners in that case were found entitled for consideration for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III in pursuance of advertisement issued is that case.
10. Thus, so far as the denial of appointment to the petitioner in pursuance of advertisement dtd. 24.4.97 (Annex. 1) on the ground that the B.Ed. degree obtained by the petitioners from Barkatullah Vishwa Vidhyalaya was not recognized one cannot be accepted as there was judicial verdict of this Court in the Case of Subodh Kumar Verma (supra) before issuance of advertisement dtd. 24.4.97 (Annex. 1) and Manish (supra) that the degree of B.Ed. obtained from Barkatullah Vishwa Vidhyalaya should be treated as recognized one.
11. Other aspect of the matter is that before filing of writ petition, the select list had expired and the question arises for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioners are entitled to be considered for the post of Teacher Grade III or not especially when they were not considered by the respondent on the ground that the B.Ed. degrees obtained by the petitioners from Barkatullah Vishwa Vidhyalaya were not recognized one.
12. Before discussing the stand taken by the respondents, something should be said on the point of expiry of select list.
ON THE POINT OF EXPIRY OF SELECT LIST
13. Now, the petitioners cannot be denied appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III in pursuance of advertisement dtd. 24.2.97 (Annex. 1) on the ground that the period of select list had expired, for the judgments of this Court in the cases of Idan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (3) and Anita Chopra v. State of Rajasthan (4) and the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Purushottam v. Chairman, M.S.E.B. and Anr. (5), may be referred to.
14. Apart from this, the since the judgment in the case of Subodh Kumar Verma (supra) was given on 8.5.95 i.e. prior to issuance of advertisement did. 24.4.97 (Annex. 1), therefore, the judgment in the case of Subodh Kumar Verma (supra) was in force on the date of issuance of advertisement (Annex.1).
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Purushottam (supra) held that duly selected candidate could not be denied appointment on the pretext that panel's term had expired and the post had been filed by someone else. Such denial creates discrimination and is arbitrary and cannot be sustained.
16. It may be stated here that in this case there is no dispute on the point the vacancies advertised vide advertisement dtd. 24.4.97 (Annex.1) lapsed on 1.4.98 and the writ petition was filed by the petitioners on 18.11.98.
17. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as soon as the petitioners came to know that less meritorious persons had been selected and their cases had been turned down on the ground that B.Ed. degrees obtained by the petitioners trough correspondence from Barkatullah Vishwa Vidhyalaya were not recognized one, they approached this Court.
18. When this being the position, the case set up by the respondents that writ petition itself was filed after expiry of select list and hence the petitioners are not entitled for consideration for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III in pursuance of advertisement dtd. 24.4.97 (Annex. 1) cannot be accepted.
19. Further more, so far as the argument that the writ petition was filed by the petitioners after selection process was over is concerned, it is submitted that the petitioners are not seeking appointment on the ground that they were kept in waiting list, but the year seeking appointment as their case was wrongly rejected by the respondents and therefore, the law laid down in the cases of Virendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan (6), Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Haldwani v. Indian Wood Product Ltd. (7) and M.P. Electricity Board v. Virendra Kumar Sharma (8) would not be helpful to the learned counsel for the respondents.
20. Hence, it may be concluded that if the select list expires because of no fault of the petitioners and the petitioners were found otherwise suitable to be appointed, then expiry of select list would not come in the way of the petitioners for giving appointment as denial of appointment is violative of fundamental right as enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Thus, from this point of view also, if the petitioners stand in merit, petitioners are entitled to be appointed on the post of Teacher Grade III in pursuance of advertisement dtd. 24.4.97 (Annex. 1) and thus, the petitioners are entitled to seek remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
21. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly the present writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioners for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III in pursuance of advertisement dtd. 24.4.97 (Annex. 1) within three months from today and if the petitioners stand in merit and less meritorious persons than the petitioners have been given appointment in pursuance of advertisement dtd. 24.4.97 (Annex. 1), then the petitioners be provided appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III from the date persons junior to the were so appointed. It is however made clear that on their appointment, the petitioners shall not be entitled for the emoluments of the post for the past, but they will be entitled to claim seniority over the persons who were lower in merit but have been offered appointment prior to them.
No order as to costs.