Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dinesh Chandra Damor vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 March, 2022
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Rekha Borana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1205/2019
Dinesh Chandra Damor S/o Shri Soka Damor, Aged About 37
Years, R/o Village Amlipada, Post- Timeda Bada, Tehsil-
Kushalgarh, District Banswara.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Rural Development And Panchayat Raj, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. Secretary, Department Of Elementary Education, Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ramdev Potaliya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Order 10/03/2022 The instant intra court appeal has been preferred by the appellant petitioner Dinesh Chandra Damor being aggrieved of the order dated 27.11.2018 passed by the learned Single Bench whereby, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16014/2018 preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.
The petitioner setup a case that he was entitled to be selected on the post of Teacher Grade-III Level-II by treating him to be qualified as per clause No.9.3.(iii) of the recruitment notification dated 31.07.2018 which reads as below:-
"9-3 ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky;] tks/kiqj dh [k.MihB }kjk fofHkUu ;kfpdkvksa esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 20-05-2011 ds Øe esa Ldwy f"k{kk foHkkx] jktLFkku ds i=kad ,Q 7¼1½bZ-bZ@Iyku@2011 fnukad 17 twu] 2011 ,oa Li'Vhdj.k fnukad 16-09-2013 ds vuqlkj fuEu vH;FkhZ jktLFkku izkFkfed ,oa mPp izkFkfed fo|ky; v/;kid lh/kh HkrhZ] 2018 esa Hkkx ysus gsrq ik= gksaxs& (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 11:38:51 PM) (2 of 4) [SAW-1205/2019]
(i) -------------
(ii) ---------------
(iii) ,sls lHkh vH;FkhZ ftUgksaus jk'Vªh; v/;kid f"k{kk ifj'kn dh vf/klwpuk fnukad 31-08-2009 ds tkjh gksus ds ckn f"k{kd izf"k{k.k ikB~;Øeksa esa izos"k ys fy;k Fkk] mUgsa Lukrd Lrj ;k led{k ijh{kk esa U;wure 50 izfr"kr vad izkIr gksus dh ck/;rk gSA "
The appellant petitioner has filed on record, a notification dated 13.11.2019 issued by the NCTE, in an endeavor to claim that by the effect of the above notification, the requirement of minimum percentage of marks in graduation would not apply to the incumbents who had taken admission to the Bachelor of Education or Bachelor of Elementary Education or equivalent course prior to 29.07.2011 and that the notification has retrospective effect. The said notification is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference:-
"F. No. NCTE-Re/012/22/2019-US(Regulation)- HQ.-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of the Section 23 of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (35 of 2009) and in pursuance of the notification number Government of India in the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education and Literacy S.O. 750(E) dated 31st March 2010 published in the Gazette of India. Extraordinary, Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section
(ii) dated the 5th April, 2010, the national Council for Teacher Education hereby makes the following amendments in the notification of the Government of India, National Council for Teacher Education, vide F. No.61-3/20/2010-NCTE(N&S) published in the Gazette of India, Part III, Section 4, dated the 23 rd August, 2010, namely:-
1. In the said notification in paragraph 1, in sub-
paragraph(ii):-(A) in clause (a) for the words, figures, (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 11:38:51 PM) (3 of 4) [SAW-1205/2019] brackets and letters "Graduation with at least 50% marks and 1 year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.)", the words, figure and letters "At least 50% marks either in Graduation or in Post-Graduation and B.Ed." shall be substituted.
(B) After clause (b), at the end, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:-
"Provided that minimum percentage of marks in graduation shall not be applicable to those incumbents who had already taken admission to the Bachelor of Education or Bachelor of Elementary Education or equivalent course prior to the 29th July, 2011."
2. This notification shall be deemed to have come into force on the 29th July, 2011."
We are of the firm opinion that though retrospective effect has been given to this notification, but it cannot have any impact on concluded recruitments as per the explanatory note below the notification, which stipulates:-
"It is certified that none will be adversely affected by the retrospective effect being given to the amendment rules."
Admittedly, the recruitment process at hand was concluded well before the issuance of the above notification and hence, argument that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the above notification is not tenable.
It is an admitted position that the appellant took admission in the teachers training course on 20.10.2010 that is more than one year and ten months after the cut off date 31.08.2009 stipulated in the advertisement. The petitioner, who belongs to the SC category, was required to have 45% marks in the graduation course so as to be qualified for the post. It is an (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 11:38:51 PM) (4 of 4) [SAW-1205/2019] undisputed position that he was having only 41.72% marks in the graduation course. As per the condition No.9.3.(iii) of the recruitment notification (supra), all such candidates who had taken admission in the teachers training course after 31.08.2009 were required to be having minimum of 50% marks in the graduation or equivalent course. A relaxation of 5% was admissible to the reserved category candidates including the SC/ST and persons with disabilities. The appellant herein had only 41.72% marks in the graduation degree course and thus, even by extending benefit of 5% relaxation, his marks in the graduation course were less than 50%, which was the minimum qualifying threshold in the subject advertisement.
Hence, the appellant was not qualified and was rightly denied selection to the post of Teacher Grade-III Level-II in the subject recruitment process. The impugned order dated 27.11.2018 passed by the learned Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16014/2018 does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever warranting interference.
Thus, the appeal fails and is dismissed as being devoid of merit.
(REKHA BORANA),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
68-Pramod/Devesh/-
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 11:38:51 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)