Dismissed

Haney Sunariwal v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC15 Oct 2015CW/5214/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition challenging the termination of the petitioner's services as a Senior Teacher. The petitioner had passed her required B.Ed. exam after the final examination date fixed in the recruitment advertisement. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that the candidate must possess the qualification as of the specified cutoff date and the petition was thus not

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed holding that the petitioner was ineligible as she passed the required qualification exam after the cutoff date specified in the advertisement.

Haney Sunariwal Vs State and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

: O R D E R :

¶4

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5214/2015

¶5

Honey Sunariwal vs. State of Raj. & Ors.

¶6

:: 15^th October, 2015 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶7

Date of Order

¶8

Smt. Sumitra Singaria, for the petitioner.

¶9

BY THE COURT:

¶10

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against order dated 22.04.2014 (Annexure-6) passed by Dy. Director (Secondary Education), Ajmer Circle, Ajmer, whereby, services of the petitioner has been terminated on account of the fact that she had not passed her B.Ed. Exam on 21.02.2014 from the post of Senior Teacher (Maths).

¶11

In the writ petition, which has been filed on 13.05.2015, it is, inter alia, contended that an advertisement dated 02.08.2013 for recruitment on the post of Senior Teachers for various subjects including Mathematics was issued by the respondent Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer ('Commission'); the qualification for the post was Graduation from a recognized University and it was further provided that students appearing in the last year of Graduation could also fill the application form; it is, inter alia, claimed that since the petitioner was B.Sc. and had passed her B.Ed. Part I, she was eligible to apply and, therefore, she applied for the post and on issuance of admission card, she appeared in the examination and did well; the

¶12

¶13

petitioner's result of B.Ed. was declared on 23.06.2014, wherein, she passed and the result of the recruitment was declared on 17.09.2014 as the petitioner had secured more than cut off marks, she was selected for appointment and was given appointment on the post of Senior Teacher (Maths) vide order dated 22.12.2014, where, the petitioner joined; while the petitioner was serving at the School, where she was posted, vide the impugned order dated 22.04.2015, the services of the petitioner were terminated and the petitioner was relieved on 23.04.2015.

¶14

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents were not justified in terminating the services of the petitioner, inasmuch as, the result of the recruitment was declared by the respondents after the petitioner gained the education qualification and, therefore, she was fully eligible and entitled to get the appointment on the post of Senior Teacher; it is further submitted that normally the result of academic session is declared in the month of May and the Commission without application of mind, declared the cut off date as 22.02.2014, which is incorrect and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.

¶15

Reliance was placed on Smt. Manju Chhaba v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 34/2015 decided on 10.09.2015.

¶16

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitione and have perused the material placed on record.

¶17

The stipulation in the advertisement qua the educational qualification provided by way of note reads as under:-

¶18

"न�ट:- परन�� यह क� उपर�क य�गय�� प�ठयकम �� अनन�म वर� ��

¶19

¶20

पर�क� ज� स ध भ�# �� ल%ए ननयम( य� अन�स)च यथ� उन,%ख.� अप�कक� श1कख2� अह � � ह1, म3 सन4मल%� ह�आ ह� य� सन4मल%� ह�न� व�%� वयकक पद �� ल%ए आव�दन �रन� �� ल%ए प�त ह�ग� क�न�� उस� आय�ग द�र� आय�नज� पर�क� �� ददन�=� स� प)व श� कख2� अह1 � � अनज �रन� �� सब)� द�न� ह�ग� अनयथ� आव�द� अप�त म�न� ज�व�ग�। - सपष �र2 यह सपष क�य� ज�� ह1 क� उक स�ववध� �� व� ह� अभयथ# उपभ�ग �र स�3 ग� ज� आव�द� आव�दन-पत प�नE �� अनन�म ददन�=� �� पद �� व�=नF� य�गय�� पर�क� �� अनन�म वर� म3 पव�श %� च � � ह(ग� एव= पद �� व�=नF� य�गय�� अनन�म वर� �� पर�क� म3 सन4मल%� ह�ए य� सन4मल%� ह�न� व�%� ह1।"

¶21

A perusal of the stipulation would reveal that though the students appearing in the final year of the qualifying examination were eligible to apply, the same was subject to the condition that before the date of examination, the applicant would be required to produce proof of having acquired the eligibility else the applicant would be treated as ineligible.

¶22

Admittedly, the examinations were held on 21.02.2014 and the petitioner acquired the eligibility qualification on 23.06.2014 i.e. well beyond the cut off date; the respondents oblivious of the above ineligibility, provided appointment to the petitioner, however, when the discrepancy was noticed, the impugned order dated 22.04.2015 (Annexure-6) was passed terminating the services of the petitioner.

¶23

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Alka Ojha v. RPSC & Anr. : AIR 2011 SC 3547 , inter alia, observed as under:-

¶24

The question whether the candidate must have the prescribed educational and other qualifications as on the particular date specified in the Rule or the advertisement is no longer res integra. In Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 262 : (AIR 2000 SC 2011 : 2000 AIR SCW 1888), this Court referred to the earlier judgments in A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Sarat Chandra (1990) 2 SCC 669, District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi (1990) 3 SCC 655, M.V. Nair (Dr.) v. Union of India (1993) 2 SCC 429 : (1993 AIR SCW 1412), Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 168, U.P. Public Service Commission, U.P., Allahabad v. Alpana, (1994 AIR SCW 2861) (supra) and Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar (supra) and approved the following proposition laid down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court:

¶25

¶26

"..... that the cut off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rules and if there be no cut off date appointed by the rules then such date as may be appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications and that if there be no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications have to be received by the competent authority."

¶27

The same view was reiterated in M.A. Murthy v. State of Karnataka (2003) 7 SCC 517 : (AIR 2003 SC 3821 : 2003 AIR SCW 4377) and Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India (2007) 4 SCC 54. Therefore, the Full Bench of the High Court rightly held that a candidate who does not possess driving licence on the last date fixed for submission of the application is not eligible to be considered for selection.”

¶28

From the above judgment, the stipulation that the cut off date, by reference to which eligibility requirement was required to be satisfied is the date for the purpose in the advertisement calling for application.

¶29

In view thereof, the submissions made with regard to stipulation in the advertisement appears to be without any substance.

¶30

In the case of District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram & Anr. v. M. Pripura Sundari Devi : (1990) 3 SCC 655 Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-

¶31

“It must further be realized by all concerned that when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the same, it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved are all those who had similar or even better qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. It amounts to a fraud on public to appoint persons with inferior qualifications in such circumstances unless it is clearly stated that the qualifications are relaxable. No court should be a party to the perpetuation of the fraudulent practice. We are afraid that the Tribunal lost sight of this fact”

¶32

From the above, it is apparent that there is no substance in the

¶33

¶34

submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶35

So far as the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Manju Chhaba (supra) is concerned, the same has no application to the facts of the present case as in the said case the petitioner had acquired the eligibility qualification during two papers of the written examination for recruitment, which was the cut off date, however, in the present case, the petitioner has acquired the qualification after four months. In view of the above, no case for interference is made out. The

¶36

writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.

¶37

(ARUN BHANSALI), J.

¶38

A.K.Chouhan/- 14

Haney Sunariwal v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haney Sunariwal v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Raj. Vs M/S. Nav Bharat Const. Company

Ram Lal Meghwal and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Amra Ram Vs State and Ors.

Dr. Suresh Chandra Shrimali Vs State and Ors.

Raj. State Roadway Employees Union, Vs Rsrtc and Ors.

Nonaram Meghwal Vs Rsrtc and Anr.