Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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 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 (3 of 4) [CW-15309/2010] 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 non- equivalence 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 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 (4 of 4) [CW-15309/2010] 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.