Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Chhitar Mal Choudhary &Anr vs State Of Raj And Ors on 21 May, 2010
Bench: Jagdish Bhalla, M.N. Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.308/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.105/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.207/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.209/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.210/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.211/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.212/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.220/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.245/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.309/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.311/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.312/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.313/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.314/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.315/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.316/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.317/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.318/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.319/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.320/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.321/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.322/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.323/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.324/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.325/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.326/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.327/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.328/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.329/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.332/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.341/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.346/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.358/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.402/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.403/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.404/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.405/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.406/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.407/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.408/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.409/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.410/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.411/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.412/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.413/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.414/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.415/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.416/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.417/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.418/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.419/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.420/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.421/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.422/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.423/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.424/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.425/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.430/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.431/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.432/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.433/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.434/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.435/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.436/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.437/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.438/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.439/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.440/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.441/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.468/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.469/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.470/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.471/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.472/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.473/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.474/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.475/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.476/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.477/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.502/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.543/2009 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.02131/2010 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.02132/2010 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.02340/2010 Date of Judgment :: 21st May, 2010 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JAGDISH BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Mr.Rajendra Soni ] Mrs.Naina Saraf ] Mr.H.K. Sharma ] Mr.Banwari Lal Sharma ] Mr.Sandeep Saxena ] for appellants Mr.Sudesh Bansal ] Mr.J.K. Singhi ] Mr.D.P. Sharma ] Mr.Praveen Jain ] Mr.N.A.Naqvi, Addl.A.G. for State. ***** REPORTABLE: BY THE COURT : (Per Bhandari, J.)
By these appeals, a challenge has been made to a common judgment dated 7.1.2009 whereby bunch of writ petitions were decided.
The matter pertains to appointment on the post of Prabodhak pursuant to the provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2008').
Learned counsel for appellants submitted that appointment to the post of Prabodhak has been made in violation of Article 16 of the Constitution of India as the respondent State Government made discrimination while making selection to the said post. Certain Teachers working under the educational projects of the State were given higher bonus marks for each teaching year's experience apart from the benefit of age for judging their eligibility. Elaborating the arguments, learned counsel for appellants submit that while the Rules of 2008 came into effect, definition of 'teaching experience' was provided under Section 2(k) and method of recruitment in Parts III & IV of the Rules, accordingly, advertisement was issued calling for the applications from and amongst the eligible candidates. The recruitment to the post is required to be made as per the method of direct recruitment provided under the Rules of 2008. The respondents, however, failed to conduct selection as per the Rules. After calling for applications from the eligible candidates for selection on the post of Prabodhak, respondents took an administrative decision to provide five bonus marks for each teaching year's experience to Para Teachers etc. working in educational project, with the ceiling of maximum 25 marks whereas Teachers of private recognized institutions were awarded only two bonus marks for each teaching year's experience with the ceiling of maximum 10 marks. By aforesaid, the Teachers, who gained teaching experience in the private institutions, were deprived to get equal treatment. This is more so when the advertisement is silent on that issue apart from the Rules of 2008. The respondents, thus, acted contrary to the Rules in providing bonus marks for the purpose of selection.
Other argument was raised in regard to the age of the candidate for judging his eligibility. As per Rule 13(v) of the Rules of 2008, those Teachers who had imparted education in specified educational projects were deemed to be within the age limit, had they been within the age limit at the time of their initial engagement. The Teachers of private recognized institutions were not given similar benefit so as other Teachers working in the government educational projects other than specified under Rule 13(v) of the Rules of 2008. By virtue of aforesaid, Teachers of specified educational projects, were considered for selection and given appointment irrespective of their attaining age more than provided under the Rules, only for the reason that at the time of their initial appointment in specified educational projects, they were within the age limit. The respondents were required to give similar treatment to all the Teachers on that count.
The challenge to the judgment in bunch of these appeals rests only on two grounds narrated above, as appellants are not concerned to other issues decided by the learned Single Judge in its common judgment.
Learned counsel for appellants submit that when 'teaching experience' has been defined under the Rules of 2008 so as 'direct recruitment', then the respondents should have made recruitment strictly as per the Rules of 2008. The direct recruitment and teaching experience are defined under the Rules of 2008. which reads as under:-
2(c) Direct recruitment means recruitment made in accordance with Part IV of these rules.
2(k) Teaching Experience for the purpose of direct recruitment includes the experience gained in supervisory capacity in any recognized educational institution or project.
Emphasizing on the words 'direct recruitment', it was urged that when the definition provides direct recruitment to be in accordance with Part IV of the Rules of 2008, the respondents were not authorized to provide bonus marks for consideration of the merit. This is more so when definition of teaching experience makes no difference between a Teacher of recognized institution or a Teacher working in educational project. The respondents, however, made discrimination while awarding different bonus marks to the Teachers worked under the recognized institutions and the Teachers worked in educational project. By awarding different bonus marks for each year of teaching experience with maximum ceiling, the Teachers of private recognized institutions were literally deprived to get appointment. This is more so when earlier Para Teachers had preferred writ petitions before this High Court to claim benefit of regularization. The Division Bench of this Court dismissed those writ petitions by an elaborate judgment in the case of Richpal Singh Vs. State reported in 2005 (1) WLC 548. Therein it was noticed that Para Teachers are appointed from and amongst the candidates of a particular area, thus cannot be said to be an appointment in accordance with the Rules, to allow them benefit of regularization without facing selection through the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the R.P.S.C.'). That was a case wherein R.P.S.C. called applications for appointment to the post of General Teacher (Teacher Grade-III) under separate set of rules. Emphasizing on the verdict of this Court in the case of Richpal Singh (supra), it was prayed that the action of the respondents may be declared to be illegal and arbitrary apart from discriminatory in nature. There exists no reasonable classification between Para Teachers etc. and Teachers of private recognized institutions. Based on unreasonable classification, the appellants have been deprived to get appointment on the post of Prabodhak. To support the arguments, a reference of judgment in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Raj Kumar reported in AIR 1982 SC 1301 has also been made.
So far as the discrimination in regard to the eligibility of the candidates on the ground of age is concerned, it was submitted that discrimination has been made between the Teachers of Government Educational Projects specified under Rule 13(v) of the Rules of 2008 and all others who are Teachers in the private educational institutions or even the Teachers in Government Educational Institutions other than specified under Rule 13(v) of the Rules of 2008. Many of the candidates were deprived from the right of consideration on the ground of age whereas similarly placed candidates working in a specified educational project were given right of consideration irrespective of their crossing the maximum age limit provided under the Rules of 2008. The appellants, thus, prayed for quashing of the recruitment so made with a further direction of selection afresh.
Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for State submitted that there exists no illegality or discrimination in the selection on the post of Prabodhak. Learned Single Judge elaborately discussed the issue and came to the conclusion that there exists reasonable differentia in awarding different bonus marks to Para Teachers etc. than to the Teachers of private recognized institutions. Para Teachers and other Teachers working in the government educational projects get only honorarium apart from their duties in remote areas. Such Teachers were required to motivate children of the area to come for education and such work has been undertaken by the Para Teachers etc. for last many years. The Teachers who imparted education in different educational projects were part of various educational schemes introduced by the Government from time to time and their services were co-terminus to the projects as they were not entitled to serve till attaining the age of superannuation. Taking into consideration all these facts, the Government decided to provide different bonus marks with a maximum ceiling. Different bonus marks were provided based on reasonable classification, thus it was maintained by the learned Single Judge.
As regards to ground of age, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that no challenge has been made to Rule 13(v) of the Rules of 2008, thus in absence thereof, argument of discrimination may not be accepted. If the appellants were so aggrieved by grant of age benefit to the Teachers of educational projects, they were at liberty to challenge statutory provisions, however, in the absence of which, appellants are not entitled for any relief, more so when Rule is quite specific in nature. The candidates, who worked in the educational projects specified under Rule 13(v) of the Rules of 2008, were eligible to take benefit of age limit, whereas similar benefit cannot be claimed contrary to the Rules. The Teachers working in educational projects like Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Lok Jumbish Project etc. cannot be kept on the same pedestal. The Rule was made on permissible classification and, therefore only, it was not challenged by the respondents. The prayer is, thus, to maintain the judgment of the learned Single Judge on both grounds raised in these appeals. The argument is supported by referring to the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sant Ram Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1967 SC 1910 and in the case of Dhananjay Malik & Ors. Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors. reported in AIR 2008 SC 1913.
We have given out our thoughtful consideration to the grounds urged before us and perused the record carefully.
Since impugned judgment has been challenged only on two grounds, we are deciding these appeals only on the grounds urged before us. The impugned judgment otherwise involves other issues also.
The first argument raised by learned counsel for appellants is in regard to discrimination in awarding higher bonus marks to the Teachers worked in different educational projects of the Government and not to the Teachers, who had worked in private recognized institutions. The Rules of 2008 so as the advertisement do not provide award of bonus marks and it is only by way of an administrative decision, bonus marks have been given. According to learned counsel for appellants, direct recruitment should have been made strictly as per Rules of 2008 wherein no differentia has been made between the Teachers of the private recognized institutions and the other Teachers working in the government educational projects. If we take care of the definition of direct recruitment it provides, direct recruitment means recruitment made in accordance with Part IV of the Rules of 2008. In Part IV, Rule 20 provides constitution of committee whereas Rules 21 to 23 provide manner of inviting applications, form of application and application fee. Rule 24 provides scrutiny of applications whereas Rule 25 provides recommendation of the Committee for appointment by arranging a list in order of merit. Rule 26 provides selection by appointing authority.
Perusal of the Rules does not show as to what would be the basis of determination of the merit, though Rules talk about the arrangement of the list in order of merit, hence, criteria for determination of the merit is to be provided. The State Government, accordingly, took a decision for determination of the merit with bonus marks. In view of the aforesaid, it cannot be said that by providing criteria for bonus marks to adjudge merit of the candidates, Rules of 2008 have been violated. It is a settled law that by administrative decision, Rules can be supplemented and herein Rules have been supplemented by laying down the criteria to adjudge merit with bonus marks. In view of aforesaid, it cannot be said that Rules have been violated. Coming to the advertisement, it is not necessary to disclose criteria for judging merit. In view of aforesaid, if advertisement is silent on the issue of award of bonus marks, the administrative decision cannot be said to be illegal for providing bonus marks at the time of judging merit of the candidates.
Now, issue comes as to whether different bonus marks can be provided? It is stated that Teachers worked in the educational projects were awarded five bonus marks for each teaching year's experience with ceiling of 25 marks whereas Teachers of private recognized institutions provided two bonus marks for each teaching year's experience with the ceiling of 10 marks. If we look at the judgments cited by both the parties, it comes out that equals cannot be made unequals and, same way, unequals cannot be made equals and if that is so done, then it becomes violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. In view of aforesaid legal position, if a candidate is similarly placed, then he is entitled for equal treatment i.e., to treat all equals with one criteria. At the same time, if there exists difference in two categories, then it becomes a case of unequals and thereby if unequals are made equals then also it violates Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.
Now, we come to the facts of this case to judge the issue as to whether there exists discrimination in the State action, which is violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India?
For awarding bonus marks for teaching experience of each year, there exists two groups; (i) Teachers of the private recognized institutions and (ii) Teachers of the educational projects like Para Teachers etc. Whether two categories can be said to be equal is the moot question to be decided. If the answer is that they are equal, then different bonus marks cannot be provided, but at the same time, if two categories are unequals, definitely they cannot be made equals by providing same bonus marks. The Teachers in the government projects are those who are working in the remote areas not in regular pay scale but are getting honorarium. Their services are co-terminus to the projects. Those projects were brought to increase the literacy in the State, thus persons working in educational projects were to motivate children of the village to come for education. Such Teachers are not entitled for any other benefit than honorarium, thus benefit of gratuity, selection scale, provident fund etc. has not been provided to them. As against the aforesaid, Teachers in the private recognized institutions were entitled to regular pay scale apart from the benefit of gratuity and selection scale etc., in view of catena of the judgments of this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court. Recognition of those private institutions is subject to award of regular pay scale and other benefit to the Teachers, who are working in the aided or unaided institutions, thus those Teachers generally work in the urban areas.
Some of the counsel urged that even few Teachers in the private recognized institutions were not awarded regular pay scale, however, it cannot be taken as a guiding factor because Teachers in the private recognized institutions are otherwise eligible for all benefits as mentioned above and if they failed to take such benefit, it cannot result to their benefit apart from the fact that cases of few Teachers cannot govern the issue. Taking note of aforesaid facts, it clearly comes out that two categories cannot be said to be equal. In view of the aforesaid, different treatment for award of bonus marks can be provided by the Government because it is then based on reasonable classification and otherwise if unequals are treated as equals, then also it violates Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. If the issue is judged from other point of view, then appellants have claimed parity with others without showing that they stand on same footing with that of the Teachers in educational projects. In view of aforesaid, we find no error in the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
Now, the question comes about the definition of 'teaching experience'. It is submitted that definition of 'teaching experience' provides no difference between a Teacher of educational project than that of a Teacher of a private recognized institution. It is true that perusal of the definition of 'teaching experience' does not provide any difference between Teachers of the recognized institutions than of the educational projects. It is, however, necessary to look into the fact that it is mainly for judging the eligibility under the Rules. Rule 14 of the Rules of 2008 provides academic and professional qualifications of a candidate. For ready reference aforesaid Rule is quoted thus:-
Rule 14. Academic and Professional Qualifications A candidate for direct recruitment to the posts specified in the Schedule shall, in additional to such experience as is required shall possess -
(i) the qualification and experience given in Column 6 of the schedule, and
(ii) working knowledge of Hindi written in Devnagri Scripts and knowledge of Rajasthan culture.
Perusal of the aforesaid Rule shows that qualifications and experience would be as given in Column 6 of the schedule. Column 6 of the Schedule provides five years continuing teaching experience without any break in any recognized educational institutions/educational projects. This is apart from the educational qualifications as given therein. The word used under the schedule so as under the Rule is to be given meaning as defined under the Rules of 2008. The respondents have made no discrimination on that count and in fact all those who are having five years continuous teaching experience without any break in any private recognized educational institutions/educational projects have been given same treatment while judging eligibility.
In view of aforesaid discussion, it is not a case where even definition of teaching experience as given under the Rules of 2008 has been violated. Thus, we are of the opinion that the administrative action of the respondents cannot be said to be discriminatory or illegal in award of different bonus marks for selection to the post of Prabodhak.
Now, comes the second question regarding discrimination in judging eligibility of age. It is stated that Teachers of private recognized educational institutions and even of few educational projects not specified in the Rules have not been considered in age limit with the same criteria as provided under Rule 13(v) of the Rules of 2008. For ready reference Rule 13(v) of the Rules of 2008 is quoted hereunder:-
Rule 13. Age -.........
(v) that the person serving under the educational project in the State viz., Rajiv Gandhi Pathshala/Shiksha Karmi Board/ Lok Jumbish Pariyojana/Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan/District Primary Education Programme shall be deemed to be within age limit, had they been within the age limit when they were initially engaged even though they may have crossed the age limit at the time of direct recruitment.
Perusal of aforesaid Rule shows that those who have worked in the educational projects specified under the Rules would be treated within age limit, had they been within the age limit at the time of their initial engagement even though they may have crossed the age limit at the time of direct recruitment. The appellants herein not challenged the aforesaid Rule while maintaining the writ petitions and now praying for a relief which goes contrary to the Rules of 2008. The appellants cannot seek benefit similar to that provided under Rule 13(v) of the Rules of 2008 unless there is a challenge to the Rules on the ground of discrimination.
The provisions of Rule 13 provides certain age relaxation in favour of reserved caste candidates and other category of candidates specially given therein. The appellants cannot make a prayer which goes contrary to the Rules. The candidates, who are not covered by the proviso to Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008 cannot seek benefit contrary to provision of Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008 because a candidate less than of 23 years and more than of 35 years of age is not eligible for recruitment. Hence, if any of the appellants is below the age of 23 years or has crossed the age of 35 years cannot be held to be eligible. Any prayer contrary to the Rules cannot be accepted. In view of aforesaid, even second ground raised by the appellant has no merit.
In view of the discussions, all the appeals fail and are, accordingly, dismissed. It is, however, clarified that the judgment of the learned Single Judge has been upheld qua the appellants on the two issues urged before us. Aforesaid clarification has been made in view of the statement of counsel for appellants that there are other appeals challenging the same judgment on different grounds.
(M.N. BHANDARI), J. (JAGDISH BHALLA)C.J. Sunil/Jr.P.A