Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Nirmala Yadav vs . State Of Rajasthan & Ors. on 18 September, 2014
Author: Vineet Kothari
Bench: Vineet Kothari
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 136/2001.
Nirmala Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Order dated 18/09/2014
1/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR.
:: O R D E R ::
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 136/2001.
Nirmala Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Date of Order :::: 18th September, 2014.
PRESENT
HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
Appearance:
None present for the petitioner.
Mr. B.L. Bhati, Govt. Counsel, for the State.
--
BY THE COURT:
1. None is present on behalf of petitioner though name of Mr. K.S. Yadav, is shown in the cause list. On behalf of respondent- State, Mr. B.L. Bhati, Govt. Counsel is present.
2. Perused the record, and heard learned Govt.
Counsel.
3. The petitioner, Nirmala Yadav, has filed the present writ petition in this Court on 09.01.2001 seeking following reliefs:-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction: -
i). the impugned order dated 15.10.1999 (Annexure-6) passed by the respondent No.3 may kindly be quashed and set aside.
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 136/2001. Nirmala Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Order dated 18/09/2014 2/7
ii).The respondent may kindly be directed to appoint the petitioner as Physical Teacher Grade III from the date of appointment of persons junior to the petitioner with all consequential benefits including seniority etc.
iii).Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.
iv).Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs."
4. By the impugned order (Annex.P/6) dated 15.10.1999, the petitioner was not offered appointment on the post of P.T.I. Grade-II, which was advertised vide the Advertisement (Annex.P/1) whereby 16 such posts were advertised. The reason assigned in the impugned order (Annex.P6) dated 15.10.1999 issued by the Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jodhpur, for not offering the appointment to the petitioner was that for the qualification obtained by the petitioner from "सच द ननद श कण सस न र ररक श कण मह व द लय, क र ड " Nagpur, (Maharashtra) was not recognized by the State Government, including the B. P. Ed. course. The reasons assigned vide the impugned order 15.10.1999 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 136/2001. Nirmala Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Order dated 18/09/2014
3/7
"अद हस करक दर यच क " शम
ननमल य द प&त श भमरम यद क) आ )दन पत
क अ ल कन ककय गय इनक. /कणणक य गय ब.
प . एड. डडग (सच द ननद श कण सस न र ररक
श कण मह व द लय, क र ड ज7ल न गप&र (मह र ष) क र ष य अधय पक श क पररषद स) म नय प प नह ह न) क पर कण ककय गय ।
र ष य अधय पक श क पररषद पज>म क)त सशमन , भ प ल न) अपन) पत ददन क 4-12-98 स) इस क य लय क स@च ककय ह/ कक सच द ननद श कण सस न र ररक श कण मह व द लय, क र ड ज7ल न गप&र (मह र ष) क सत 98-99 क) शलए म नय पद न क. गई ह/ । प@ क) षB मC इस सस क म नय नह द गई ह/ कयEकक म नय क) शलए सस न न) आ )दन पत पस & नह ककए ह/।
शम ननमल यद प&त श भम र म न) सच द ननद श कण सस न र ररक श कण
मह व द लय, क र ड ज7ल न गप&र (मह र ष) स) ब . प . ई. ( न ष"य) पश कण सत 96-97 मC ए ब . प . एड. (एक ष"य) डडग क स 97-98 मC प प ककय ह/। सत 97-98 मC यह सस न र ष य अधय पक श क पररषद स) म नय प प नह ह/ । अ : य च क " श म ननमल यद पत & श भम रम यद क. प प /कणणक य ग य ब . प . एड. सत 97-98 क. ह न) क) क रण ननय&डF ह) & प त नह म न 7 सक ह/।
अद हस कर क न) म नन य उच नय य लय
दर प रर ननणय ददन क 29-7-99 क) पररप)कय मC
समप@ण पकरण क अधययन, मनन ए पर कण ककय
ए इस ननषकष पर पह& ) ह/ कक आ " शम
ननमल यद पत
& श भम रम दर ध रर
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 136/2001. Nirmala Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Order dated 18/09/2014
4/7
प क
) णणक य गय ब . प . एड. 98 क. डडग रषय
अधय पक श क पर षद स) म नय प प नह ह/ । सत
98-99 मC र ररक श कक दद य श)ण पद क. ननय&डF
क) शलए ननशम ररय स@ 31-3-99 क सम प ह
&क. ह/ ए आ " द र ककय) गय) आ )दन क) ग
category मC ररF पद भ उपलबध नह ह/ अ : आ "
शम ननमल य द क र ररक श कक दद य श)ण
क) पद पर ननयड& F ह) & पस & आ )दन पत प7 बद
ककय 7 ह/ ए यच कक क स@ च ककय 7
ह/ कक ) ननय&डF क) प त नह ह/ ।"
5. This Court in the case of SBCWP No.4641/2013-
Bhakhara Ram Panwar Vs. R.P.S.C. & Anr., decided today itself i.e. on 18.09.2014, while deciding similar controversy has held as under: -
"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 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. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 136/2001. Nirmala Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Order dated 18/09/2014 5/7 (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 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 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 136/2001.
Nirmala Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Order dated 18/09/2014 6/7 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 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."
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 136/2001. Nirmala Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Order dated 18/09/2014 7/7
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.
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."
6. Accordingly, the present writ petition is also dismissed in the same terms being a similar case. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith.
(Dr. VINEET KOTHARI), J.
DJ/-
5