Disposed

Sanjeela Pareek v. State Education Departmentors

Rajasthan HC1 Sept 2015CW/12247/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed three writ petitions challenging the requirement of specific service experience for the post of Vidhyalay Sahayak. The court directed respondents to accept the petitioners' offline applications and verified their experience certificates within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to accept offline applications, verify experience certificates, and either counter-sign them or provide reasons for rejection within two months.

Sanjeela Pareek Vs State Education Departmentors — Education and Admissions | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

// 1 //

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

ORDER IN

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12027/2015 Nirmala Sharma vs. State & Ors.

¶5

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12247/2015 Sanjeela Pareek vs. State & Ors.

¶6

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12041/2015 Beena Kumari vs. State & Ors.

¶7

Date of Order ::: 01.09.2015

¶8

Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq

¶9

Shri J.K. Yogi) Shri Banwari Sharma) Shri Laxmi Kant Sharma), counsel for petitioners Shri S.K. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, with Shri Aniket Vyas, for respondents ####

¶10

By the Court :-

¶11

Shri S.K. Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notices on behalf of respondents. Learned counsel for petitioners has supplied him copy of memo of writ petition.

¶12

On the request of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard.

¶13

Petitioners have filed this writ petition for a direction to respondents to treat their length of experience of service at par with candidates, who rendered their services under Lok Jumbish Pariyojana/Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan/District Primary Education Programme/Rajiv Gandhi Pathshala/Shiksha Karmi Board and Madarsa listed under the Madarsa Board, and to accept their online application form for the post of Vidhyalay Sahayak under the Rajasthan Vidhyalay Sahayak Subordinate Service Rules, 2015. Further prayer is made for a direction to respondents to issue them experience certificates and consequently award bonus

¶14

// 2 //

¶15

marks and if their names is found in merit list, they may be given appointment on the said post.

¶16

Contention of learned counsel for petitioners is that as per condition no.5.2 of the advertisement, the experience of working in recognized non-government schools is also valid for the purpose of enabling one to apply on the post of Vidhyalay Sahayak. Learned counsel for petitioner has produced on record experience certificate issued by private school in their favour.

¶17

Shri S.K. Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents, has cited Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Vidhyalay Sahayak Subordinate Service Rules, 2015, wherein reference is made to Schedule-I, which requires that minimum one year's experience of working is essential in State Government School/State Recognized/non-Government School/State Government Educational Projects (other than those engaged through placement agency) viz. Lok Jumbish Pariyojana/Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan/District Primary Education Programme/Rajeev Gandhi Pathshala/Shiksha Karmi Board and Madarsa listed under the Madarsa Board.

¶18

Having regard to the facts of the case, writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to accept offline application form of the petitioners on hard copy for the post of Vidhyalay Sahayak in pursuance of advertisement issued by respondents. However, the respondent - District Education Officer (Elementary Education), concerned shall verify the experience certificate of the petitioners and, after verification, counter-sign the same or give reasons for not doing so, within two months from the date a copy of

¶19

// 3 //

¶20

this order is produced before him, under intimation to petitioners. The appearance of the petitioners in the said recruitment shall be subject to verification so made by the District Education Officer.

¶21

Writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. This also disposes of stay application.

¶22

A copy of this order be provided to Shri S.K. Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General, for onward transmission to authority concerned.

¶23

(Mohammad Rafiq) J.

¶24

RS/

¶25

All corrections made in the judgement/order have been incorporated in the judgement/order being emailed. (Ravi Sharma,P.A.)

Sanjeela Pareek v. State Education Departmentors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeela Pareek v. State Education Departmentors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhag Chand Soni Vs Nand Kishore and Another

Hoshiyar Singh Jattav Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Chandra Pal Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Om Prakash Yadav Vs Director Secondary Education

Saheb Ram Vs Chief Manager R S R T C andANR

Ajad Singh and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp