Dismissed

Hukmichand v. State Education Departmentors

Rajasthan HC20 Sept 2016CW/12281/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenged the advertisement for College Lecturer posts and the State's letter adopting the University of Rajasthan's definition of 'good academic record', requiring 55% average in three examinations preceding the Master's degree. The court held that under Article 226 it could not interfere with prescribed qualifications, that 'concerned University' meant the relevant university, an

What the court decided

AI extract

Hukmichand Vs State Education Departmentors — Education and Admissions | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR

¶2

(I) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.32442015

¶3

Pawan Kumar Balai Son of Sh. Sitaram Raipuriya, aged about 35 years, Resident of Ward No. 9, Near lndira Rest House, Srimadhopur District Sikar, Raj.

¶4

Rajkesh Khardiya Sonof Sh. Ranjeet Khardiya, aged about 41 years, Resident of Village and Post Banethi, Tehsil Kotputali, District Jaipur

¶5

Ashok Kumar Samria Son of Shri Chottu Ram, aged about 36 years, Resident of Village Nawal Kushalpura, Post Nareheda, Tehsil Kotputali, District Jaipur (Raj.)

¶6

Vishal Yadav Son of Shri Kisan La1 Yadav, aged about 33 years, Resident of Village and Post Kuner, Via Pawta, Tehsil Kotputali, District Jaipur (Raj.) 5 Hans Raj Bunkar Son of Shri Deburam bunkar, aged about 42 years, Resident of Bunkar Mohalla, Shahpura, District Jaipur (Raj.)

¶7

Satish Kumar Kirodiwal Son of Shri Gokulchand, aged about 35 years, Resident of Village Gordhanpura, Post Naya Bas, Tehsil Neem Ka thana, District Sikar (Raj.)

¶8

Mukesh Kumar Yadav Son of Shri Shivdan Yadav, aged about 30 years, Resident of Village and Post Kuner, Via Pawta, Tehsil Kotputali, District Jaipur (Raj.)

¶9

Suresh Kumar Son of Shri Srdara Ram, aged about 38 years, Resident of Village Ko!ori, Post, Devipua, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Chu8ru (Raj.)

¶10

Dimple Kumari D/o Shri Chand Kulhari, aged about 29 years, Resident of 207, Sriji Nagar, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶11

-----PETITIONERS.

¶12

I.. State of Rajasthan through its Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶13

The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Govt. Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur

¶14

The Director, College Education, Shiksha Shankul, JLN Marg, Jaipur.

¶15

¶16

The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer through its Secretary.

¶17

..... RESPONDENTS

¶18

(2) S.B. CIVIL WRlT PETITION N0.3228/2015 /

¶19

Naveen Kumar son of Jawahar Lal, aged about 35 years, resident of Opposite Hose No. G-43, PWD Colony, Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu (Ra-iasthan).

¶20

Petitioner

¶21

Versus

¶22

The Rajasthan Public Service Commission through its Secretary, Ajmer (Rajasthan).

¶23

The Secretary, ~epartmeit of Personnel, Secretariat, Jaipur 3. The Director, Department of Education (Collegiate Branch), Directorate of Education, Jaipur.

¶24

... Respondents

¶25

¶26

(3) D.B. ClVlL WRlT PETITION NO. 4499/2015

¶27

Yashwant Raj S/o Shri Shankarlal, aged .about 28 years, R/o A-4, Deepak Colony, Barkat Nagar, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur-302015/ i

¶28

Dharampal Sinsh - S/o Shri Bhana Ram Jat, aged about 36 years, R/o 12, Green Avenue Nind, V.K.I., Jaipur-302013.

¶29

Ms. Sunita Swami D/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Swami, R/o Thakur Das Street, Behind Sitaram Bhawan, Inside Jususar Gate, Bikaner.

¶30

---PETITIONERS

¶31

Versus

¶32

State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary to Government, Government pf Rakastjam Education (Gr. IV) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶33

University Grants Commission, through its secretary, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi, 110002

¶34

The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ghooghra Ghati, RPSC Bhawan, Ajmer through its Secretary.

¶35

University of Rajasthan, through its Registrar, JLN Marg, Jaipur

¶36

---RESPONDENTS.

¶37

(4) D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITON NO 5899/2015

¶38

VINOD KUMAR PARJAPAT S/O NATHU RAM PARJAPAT, WARD N0.2, NEAR BY NEW BUS STOP, RAMGARH SEKHAWATI, I1 SIKAR, RAJASTHAN.

¶39

RAM LAKHAN MEENA S/O KUNJ LAL MEENA, R-23 VINAYAK COLONY GURUDWARA, RAJASTHAN.

¶40

KARAN SINGH YADAV S/O LALA RAM YADAV H.NO 508 SHIV COLOI!Y KUNDAN NAGAR, AJMER, RAJASTHAN.

¶41

BAJRANGLAL DEHRU S/O CHOTE RAM DEHRU 751152 VED VlHAR COLONY LOHAKHAN, AJMER RAJSTHAN.

¶42

VINOD TACKECHANDANI S/O R.H TECKCHANDANI HOUSE N0.E-364 SASTRI NAGAR AJMER, RAJASTHAN.

¶43

YOGENDRA KUMAR MUNlM S/O GYARSI LAL MUNlM 747A/26SAROJ NIWAS BHAGWANGANJ AJMER, RAJASTHAN

¶44

SANJAY KUMAR S/O .BALKRISHNA, NEAR PANDEY NURSERY,

¶45

PHUSHKAR, AJMER RAJASTHAN.

¶46

KUMARI JAYA PARIHAR D/O NARAYAN SlNGH PARIHAR, H.NO. 314/30 PARTAP NAGAR MEYO LINK ROAD, AJMER RAJASTHAN

¶47

SURESH I<UMAR MEENA S/O UDAI LAL MEENA 701/52 GANESHGARH, SASTRI NAGAR, RAJASTHAN.

¶48

........ PETITIONERS

¶49

VERSUS

¶50

STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH (Its Principal Secretary ) GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN EDUCATION (GR. IV) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, JAIPUR. 2. RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (RPSC) (Through Its Secretary) GHOOGHRA GHAT], RPSC BHAWAN, AJMER, RAJASTHAN.

¶51

UNIVERSITY GRANT COMMISSION (UGC) (Through Its Secretary) BHADUR SHAH JAFFER MARG, NEW DELHl

¶52

. . . . . . . . . RESPONDENTS (5) S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION N0.6268/2015

¶53

Kuldeep son of Shree Phool Singh, aged about 31 years; resident of Village & post Hamirwas, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu (Rajasthan).

¶54

.... Petitioner

¶55

Versus

¶56

The Rajasthan Public Service Commission through its Secretary, Ajmer (Rajasthan).

¶57

The Secretary, Department of Personnel, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶58

The Director, Department, of Education (Collegiate Branch), Directorate of Education, Jaipur.

¶59

... Respondents

¶60

(6) D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION N0.9714/2015

¶61

Mahendra Kumar S/o Shri Nemichand, aged about 31 years, R/o Village and Post Gokulpura via Sanwali, District Sikar332021. (History)

¶62

Ashok Kumar Meena S/o Shri Prabhudayal Meena, aged about 32 years, R/o Village Gudhla via Vandnel, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur. (Economics)

¶63

Rishikesh Gurjar S/o Shri Khem Singh Gurjar, aged about 28 years, 'R/O Village &.Post Rendyal Gurjar via Shrimahaveer Jai, Tehsil Wazirpur, District Sawai Madhopur-322220. (Geography) 4) lndraj Gurjar S/o Shri Nathuram Gurjar, aged about 30 years, R/o Village Ganeshpura, Post Chhapura Kalan, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur-302103. (Geography)

¶64

Jai Singh Yadav S/o Shri Hanuman Yadav, aged about 33 years, R/o Village & Post Gordhanpur-a, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur. (Geography)

¶65

Rarnavatar Yadav S/o Shri Surajbhan, aged about 28 years, R/o Village burja Ki Dhani, Post Khiroti, Tehsil Shri Madhopur, District Sikar. (Geography)

¶66

Rajesh Dhenwal S/o Shri Kishan La1 Dhenwal, aged about 34 years, R/o Plot No. 13-A, A.C.F.C. Colony, Ratanada, Jodhpur342011. (Geography)

¶67

Pawan Devrath SLo Shri Jagdish Devrath, aged about 26 years, R/o Village & Post Mahiyan Wali, Tehsil & District Sri Ganganagar-335002. (Geography)

¶68

Budhram S/o ~hri'~alchand, aged about 26 years, R/o Village Jaitsar, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar-335702. (Geography)

¶69

Rameshwar Prasad Meena. S/o Shri Kalyan Meena, aged about 28 years, R/o Village Niwai, District Tonk. (Urdu) 11) Narendra Kumar Meena S/o Shri Arjun La1 Meena, aged

¶70

about 30 years, R/o B-9, Goverdhanpuri Galta Gate, Jaipur. (Commerce)

¶71

Harikesh Meena S/o Shri Jangali Ram Meena, aged about 30 years, R/o Plot No.139, Shiv Goraksh Nagar, Jagatpu.ra Road, Model Town, Jaipur-302017. (Sanskrit)

¶72

Rohitash Lal Bairwa S/o Shri Ram Bairwa, aged about 34 years, R/o 1210, Sunny Nagar, Sector-9, Kumbha ,Marg, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur. (Commerce)

¶73

Gautam Chand Mourya S/o Shri Govind Ram Mourya, aged about 31 ,years, R/o Block-A, Plot No.26, Phase-Ill, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur-302004. (Sanskrit)

¶74

Ms. Deepti Vashishtha D/o Shri Dinesh Vashishtha, aged about 43 years, R/o 52/70, Krishna Marg, B.T. Road, Mansavover, Jaipur. (History)

¶75

Shivendra Kumar Sharma S/o Shri lshwar Lal Sharma, aged about 33 years, R/o Rajasthan University, History Department, Jaipur-302015. (History)

¶76

Rajkumar Meena S/o Shri Kalu Ram Meena, R/o Plot No. 22309, lndra Gandhi Nagar, Jagatpura, Jaipur. (Political Science) 18) Ms. Sangeeta Wadhwani D/o Shri ,Pratap Rai, aged about 40 years, R/o 28, Patel Circle, Udaipur. (Political Science)

¶77

Ripudaman Singh Ujjwal S/o Shri Shivraj Ujjwal, aged about 27 years, R/o Village Bharodi, Post Varni viya Palana Khurd, Tehsil Mavli, District Udaipur-313204. (Hindi)

¶78

Akhalesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Jagdish Sharma, aged about 33 years, Village and Post Mahaswa, Tehsil Shree Mahaveerji, District Karouli. (Hindi)

¶79

Devender Singh Somawat, S/o Dr. 'Govind Singh Somawat, aged about 34 years, R/o Plot N0.C-62, Bal Nagar, Kartarpura, Jaipur. (History)

¶80

Ms. Surabhi Nandwana, D/o Shri Rajendra Nandwana, aged

¶81

about 32 years, R/o 7, Amal Ka Kanta, Premi Dwara Marg, Udaipur. (Political Science)

¶82

Naresh Meena S/o Shri Ramji Lalmeena, aged about 30 years, R/o Gem Enclave, Pradhan Marg, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. (History)

¶83

Balkaran Singh Sahota S/o Shri Sukhdev Singh Sahota, aged about 39 years, R/o Mahtar Colony, Ward No.05, New Mandi Gharsana, District Ganganagar-335711. (Hindi.)

¶84

Neeraj Kumar S/o Shri Minti Lal Meena, aged about 35 years, R/o 22309, lndra Gandhi Nagar, Jagatpura, Jaipur. (Hindi) 26) Davendra Sharma S/o Shri Shyam Sunder Sharma, aged about 32 years, R/o C-69, Subhash Nagar, Bhyaratpur. (Hindi)

¶85

Kojaram Meghwal S/o Shri Gumana Ram Meghwal, aged about 28 years, R/o Meharana, Post Dhirerarn, Tgehsil Loonkaransar, District Bikaner. (Sanskrit)

¶86

Rajkumar Meena S/o Shri Jagdish Lal Meena, aged about 27 years, R/o Jyoti Colony, Deoli, Tonk. (Geography)

¶87

Nemichand S/o Shri Rameshwarlal, aged about 38 years, R/o Patel Colony, Nawalgarh Road, Sikar. (Public Administration)

¶88

Ravindra Singh ~/d khri Hari Singh Yadav, aged about 31 years, R/o 2K-234, Shivaji Park, Alwar-301001. (Political Science) 31) Mahesh Kumar Kumawat S/o Shri Brijmohan Kumawat, aged about 31 years, R/o Behind Mitra Niwas, Majhela Road, Madanganj, Kishangarh. (Drawing Painting)

¶89

32)^{Hemraj meenaS/oShri Guman Meena, aged about32} years, R/o Village Bherunthali, Post Ganwdi, Tehsil Devli, Tonk. (Economics

¶90

Girdhari La1 Panchal S/o Shri Ramdev, aged about 27 years, R/o Kuchwada Road, Shiv Colony, Devli, Tonk. (Geography)

¶91

Yogesh Meena, S/o Shri Bhanwar La1 -meena, aged about 31

¶92

years, R/o A-20-21, Goverdhanpuri, Galta Gate, Jaipur-302003. (History)

¶93

Shri Kishan Meena S/o Shri Shankar Lal Meena, aged about 30 years, R/o 326A, Shri Gopal Nagar, Gopalpura bye-pass, Mahesh Nagar, Jaiur-302019. (Political Science)

¶94

Gopendra Kurnar Meena S/o Shri Madholal Meena, aged about 31 years, R/o Village and Post Kunjela, Tehsil Nahoti, District Karauli. (History)

¶95

Rajesh Kurnar Meena S/o Shri Battilal Meena, aged about 35 years, R/o Village Sarangpura, Post Koyala, Tehsil Barnanvas, District Sawai Madhopur-322204. (Hindi)

¶96

Manmohan S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Nagarwal, aged about 33 years, R/o Plot No.101, Gautarn Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur302015. (Economics)

¶97

Subhash S/o Shri Shyam Lal, aged about 33 years, R/o Village Basada, Post Kishangarhbas, District Alwar-301405. (Hindi Literature)

¶98

Vijay Kurnar S/o ~rishan Lal, R/o Krishi Mandi Road, Near Government Hospital, Kuchaman City, District Nagaur. (Geography)

¶99

Arvind Kurnar S/o,Shri Mehtab Singh, aged about 39 years, R/o 71/31; Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur-302032. (political Science)

¶100

Virnal Kurnar Koli S/o Shri Khumchand, aged about 33 years, R/o 266, Main Market, Laxrnangarh Road, Kathurnar, Alwar-321605. (History)

¶101

Ms. Mamta Devi Chanwla D/o Shri Jairam Chanwla, aged about 32 years, R/o Adarsh Colony, Power House, Shahpura, Jaipur. (Law) '

¶102

Govind Singh Meena S/o Shri Babulal rneena, R/o 454 Brijpuri, Teelawala, Jagatpura, Jaipur. (Geography)

¶103

Ganesh Jangid S/o Shri Radhey Shyam Jangid, aged about 28 years, R/o Village & Post Sultanpur, Near Government Hospital, Tehsil Digod, Kota. (Hindi)

¶104

Jamuna Shankar Suman S/o Shri Ramchand Suman, aged about 28 years, R/o Village and Post Sultanpur, Mallon Ka Mohalla, Kharia Kua, Tehsil Digod, Kota. (Hindi)

¶105

Manoj Kumar Meghwal S/o Shri Mohanlal Meghwal, aged about 29 years, R/o Village and Post Neemoda Hariji, Digod, Kota. (English)

¶106

Ms. Roop Gochar D/o Shri Ghanshyam Gochar, aged about 28 years, r/o Behind Aara Machine, Bangur Nagar-2, Kasua Circle, Tehsil Laadpura, Kota. (English)

¶107

Brijesh Kumar Mahawar S/o Shri Amara La1 Mahawar, aged about 32 years, R/o 176, New Sabarmati Colony, Near Pashupalan Trading Center, Kota. (Hindi)

¶108

Omprakash Gupta S/o Shri Yuvraj Gupta, aged about 36 years, R/o I<handelwal Sadan, Chabra Road, Beawar Kala, Tehsil Sangod, Kota. (Hindi) ,

¶109

Nandkishore Mahawar S/o Shri Klshanlal Mahawar, aged about 40 years, R/o C/o Uchhablal Mahawar, Khand Gawadi, Kota. (Hindi)

¶110

Ms. Preeti Trivedi D/o, 56-i Shyam Bihari Trivedi, aged about 36 years, R/o 4/P/34, Shyam Kunj, Talwandi, Kota. (Hindi)

¶111

Surendra Singh Gurjar S/o Shri lagdatar Singh Gurjar, aged about 26 years, R/o 141 K, New Colony, Ashapura, Ward No.2, Bandikui, District Dausa-303313.

¶112

Babulal Meena S/o Shri Madhoram Meena, aged about 30 years, R/o Village & Post Nakata Dhanibazri Ki via Amer, District Jaipur.

¶113

Ranveer Bana S/o Shri Omprakash, aged about 30 years, R/o Village & Post Thakri, Tehsil Raisingh Nagar, District Sri ,-

¶114

---PETITIONERS

¶115

Versus

¶116

State of Rajasthan through PrincipaL Secretary to Government, Government of Rajasthan Education (Gr.lV) eartment, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2) University Grants Commission, New Delhi through its Secretary.

¶117

3)' The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ghooghra Ghati, RPSC Bhawan, Ajmer through its Secretary.

¶118

Uni. of Raj. through its Registrar, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur.

¶119

---RESPONDENTS.

¶120

(7) D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION N0.2861/2016

¶121

Nemi Chand Mahla S/o Balu Singh Mahla, aged about 48 years, R/o Village Alaphsar, Fatshpur, Dsistrict Sikar /. , (Raj.).

¶122

Petitioner.

¶123

Versus

¶124

The State of Rajasthan through its Principal Higher Secretary to Government, Government . - of Rajasthan Education (Gr.lV), Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶125

The Secretary, University Grants Commission, New Delhi. 3. Rajasthan Public Sewice Commission, Ajmer through its Secretary.

¶126

Respondents

¶127

(8) S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION N0.7448/2016

¶128

Ravindra Kumar S/o Shri Lekhraj resident of H.No. 33, Nehru Nagar, Near School, Beawar, DistricSAjmer.

¶129

Abdullah Khan S/o Shri Mubarik Ali Khan, aged bout 31 years, resident of V/P Nua Tehsil & District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

¶130

... Petitioners

¶131

Versus

¶132

State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary to Government, Government of Rajasthan Education (Gr.lV) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶133

University Grants 'Commission, New Delhi through its Secretary.

¶134

The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ghoooghra Ghati, RPSC Bhawan, Ajmer through its Secretary

¶135

Respondents

¶136

(9) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETiTlOlV Ne.7524/2016

¶137

Anil Sain Son of Shri Sugna Ram Sain; aged about 33 years, by caste sain, resident of A-224, Gali No. 1, Sain Colony, Jhalana Doongri, Jawahar NaGAR, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶138

Mahesh Lohiya Son of Shri Mohan La1 Lohiya, aged about 33 years, by caste Lohiya, resident of A-27, Near Nagnechiji Temple, Sudarshan Nagar, Bikaner (Raj.)^.

¶139

Hanuman Prasad Prajapati Son of Shril Laduram Prajapati, aged about 38 years, by caste Prajapati, resident of C-73, Sadulganj, Bikaner (Raj.)

¶140

Gauri Shankar Son of Shl;i.Chand Ratan Jingar, aged about 35 years, resident of E-141, Jay Narayan Vyas Nagar, Bikaner (Raj.)

¶141

Om Narayan Meena Son of Shri Har Sahay Meena, aged about 32 years, by caste Meena, resident of Village Barkheda, Post Shivdaspura, Tehsil Chaksu, district Jaipur (Raj.)

¶142

Rameshwar Lal Gurjar Son of Shri Vardi Chand Guriar, aaed

¶143

about 32 years, by caste Gurjar, resident of Madra Road, Near Panchayat Bhyawan, Shrinath Colony Rajsamand (Raj.)

¶144

Arvind Kumar Son of Shri Gopa! Singh, aged about 34 years, , resident of Ward No. 18, Jaipur Road, Sikar (Raj.)

¶145

Rajesh Kumar Meena Son of Shri Ramvilas Meena, aged about 28 years, by caste Meena, resident of Village Badabad, Post Bilonakhurd, Tehsil Lalsot, district Dausa (Raj.)

¶146

Mohammad Musa Son of Shri lshak Mohammad, aged about 31 years, by caste Musalman, resident of Near Bhura Guest House, Mohalla Teliyan dsenok, district Bikaner (Raj.)

¶147

Santosh Acharya Wife of Shri Birjmohan Acharya, aged about 39 years, by caste Brahmin, resident of Sudharon ki Badi, Guwad, Bikaner (Raj.)

¶148

Ramgopal Meena Son of Shri Jagdish Prakash Meena, aged about 28 years, by caste Meena, resident of Village & Post Khanbhakri, Tehsil €2 district Dausa (Raj.)

¶149

Suresh Kumar Son of Shri Jetharam, aged about 32 years, resident of 166, Rawarivias, Amali Road, Pindwara, Tehsil * Pindwara, district Sirohi (Raj.)

¶150

Mohammad Sadik Son of Shri Mohammad Shafik, aged about 32 years, by caste Musalman, resident of Ward No. 2, Near of Masjid, Ajmer, district Ajmer (Raj.0

¶151

Ganesh Lal Barhath Son of Shri Bhanwar Lal ~arhath,'aged about 36 years , resident of 20, Shyam Nagar Kachhi Basti; Ladpura, tehsil Ladpura, district Kota (Raj.)

¶152

Revant Ram Saien Son of Shri Ramchandra Saien, aged about 30 years, resident of Near Hanuman Temp!e, Sagar Road, Tilak Nagar, Bikaner (Raj.)

¶153

Nagar Mal Son of Shri Bhagwana Ram, aged about 32 years, resident of Village & Post Ramsisar, Tehsi! Fatehpur, district Sikar (Raj.) -

¶154

Vijay Laxmi Meena Wife of Shri Dinesh Kumar Meena, aged about 36 years, by caste Meena, resident of 24, J.P. Colony, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶155

Surendra Saini Son of Shri Ramgopal Sainl, aged about 39 years, by caste Saini, resident of Ward No. 3, Nawalgarh, district Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶156

Martunjay Pareek son of Shri Shiv Bhagwan, aged about 35 years, resident of Near Goshala, Sardar Shahar, Churu (Raj.) PETITIONERS

¶157

VERSUS

¶158

State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Department of Education (Gr.-IV), Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶159

Rajasthan Public Service Commission through its Secretary, RPSC Building, Ghooghra Ghati, Ajmer (Raj.)

¶160

University Grant Commission, through its Secretary, Bahadur , Shah Zafar Marg, New ~elhj.

¶161

Registrar, University of Rajasthan, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶162

NON PETITIONER

¶163

(10) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION N0.12281/2016

¶164

Hukmichand Son of Sh. Lalaram aged about 41 years, Resident of 2/55 Housing Board, Saket Nagar, Beawar District Ajmer, Raj. -----PETITIONER.

¶165

Versus

¶166

State of Rajasthan through its Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶167

The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Govt. Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur

¶168

The Director, College Education, Shiksha Shankul, JLN Marg, Jaipur.

¶169

The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer through its Secretary.

¶170

RESPONDENTS

¶171

(11) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION N0.19709/2015

¶172

Jagat Singh son of Shri Moo1 Chand, aged about 40 years, Resident of 8-53, Anita Colony, Bajrang Nagar, Jaipur.

¶173

Rajendra Singh son of Shri Saitan Singh, aged about 42 years, Resident of 684, Vidhyut Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur.

¶174

3. Banvari Singh son of Shri Hubblal, aged about 40 years, Resident of Village & Post Pichumar, Tehsil Kumher, District Bharatpur. 4. Tikam Singh son of Shri Kamal Singh, aged about 41 years, Resident of Village Sorav, Tehsil Kathumar, District Alwar. 5. Ashok Kumar Choudhary son of Shri Padma Ram Choudhary, aged about 35 years, Resident of D-91, Shivad Area, Bapu Naaar, - Jaipclr.

¶175

Yogendra Kumar Dixit son of Shri Prakash Dixit, aged 35 about years, Resident of 3/41, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.

¶176

.... Petitioners

¶177

Versus

¶178

State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Govt. of Rajasthan, Education Department (Gr-IV), Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. University Grants Commission through its secretary, Bahadur Shah Jafar Marg, New delhi-110002.

¶179

University of Rajasthan, through its Registrar, Jaipur.

¶180

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, through its Secretary, Ajmer.

¶181

... Respondents.

¶182

DATE OF ORDER : 20/09/2016

¶183

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI

¶184

Mr. Bharat Saini, Mr. Vijay Poonia, Mr. Anil Kumal; Mr. S.P. Sharma, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Priya Pareek, Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, Mr. Manish Kumar Sharma, Mr. Ram Pratap Saini, Mr. Tanveer Ahmed, Mr.Sainay Singh, Mr. Bharat Saini, for PETITIONERS

¶185

Mr. Rajendra Prasad, AAG with Mr. A.S. Chauhan

¶186

Mr. S.K.Gupta, AAG with Mr. Devesh Chauhan

¶187

Mr. Inderjeet Singh, AAG with Mr. S.P. Singh

¶188

Mr. Manu Bhargava, Government Counsel

¶189

Mr. Rehan Mehta for Mr. Bharat Vyas & Mr. Neeraj Batra, for UGC Mr. A.K. Sharina, Sr. Adv. with 1 Mr. Rachit Sharma ] for respondents Mr. M.F. Baig 1

¶190

Mr. M.F. Baig

¶191

With consent of the parties, writ petitions have been heard finally.

¶192

By these writ petitions, .a challenge is made to the advertisement dated 12th Ja~uary, 2015, for the post of College Lecturer, defining "good academic record". The prayer is made even to set aside the letter dated 21" February, 2014 wherein the State Government has adopted the definition of "good academic record" as given by the University of Rajasthan vide Notification dated 17th October, 2012. The challenge to the Notification has not been pressed.

¶193

Learned counsel for petitioners submit that for the post of College Lecturer, a candidate needs to possess various educational qualifications. All the petitioners are in possession of the required qualification. They , have been ousted from

¶194

¶195

selection in absence of "good academic record", as defined by the State of Rajasthan. The definition of "good academic record" was earlier d~fferent than what has been provided now. All the petitioners are eligible for the post of College Lecturer, in pursuance of the definition of "good academic record", as was then existing.

¶196

The earlier definition was tested before the High Court and had been upheld by the Division Bench at Principal Seat, Jodhpur. There was no reason for the State Government to change the definition of "good academic record" vide letter dated 21" February, 2014..lf at all, it was to be changed, should have been with application of mind. As per the Regulation of University Grants Commission ("UGC") as amended, definition of "good academic record" should be as given by the 7 "concerned University". While acting in pursuance of the Regulation of UGC, the State Government was under an obligation to consider the definition of "good academic record" given by various Universities in the State of Rajasthan. It has \ arbitrarily adopted the definition of "good academic record" given by the University of Rajasthan.

¶197

The Jai Narain University, Jodhpur, Kota University, Maharaja Ganga Singh University, Bikaner, Sardar Patel University of Police and Mohanlal , Sukhadia University, Udaipur

¶198

¶199

are having different definitions of "good academic record" than what has been provided by the University of Rajasthan. It was expected of the State of Rajasthan to consider definition of "good academic record" given by various other Universities before taking a decision to adopt the definition, as given by the University of Rajasthan. The perusal of the letter datec! 21" February, 2014 does not show consideration of any other definition then what has been provided by the University of Rajasthan. It is nothing but an arbitrary exercise of powers by the State, that too, by the Principal Secretary, Higher Education. The State Government was under an obligation to make proper consideration before adopting the definition of "good academic record" but no material exists to show consideration of the definition of "good academic record" other than given by the University of Rajasthan.

¶200

As per UGC Regulations also, the definition of "good academic record" should be as provided by concerned University.

¶201

Learned counsel for petitioners have emphasised on the word "concerned university" as given under the regulation. According to them, the "concerned university" cannot mean the University of Rajasthan alone but should have been all the Universities in the State of Raiasthan. The respondents have

¶202

¶203

given narrow meaning of the word "concerned University". Infact, the definition of "good academic record" given by all the Universities in the State of Rajasthan should have been taken together but the respondents have failed to do so. The decision of State seems to be dominated by the Rajasthan Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1986 (for short "the Rules of 1986"). Under the Rules of 1986, the definition of "good academic record" was as has been provided by the University of Rajasthan. The said rule has already been amended but prevailing in the mind of the State Government. The definition of "good academic recprd" given by the University of Rajasthan has thus been adopted. This shows that even after amendment in the rules, what is prevailing in the mind of the State Government is the rule which does not exist herein. For the aforesaid reason also, impugned letter dated 2lSt February, 2014 and the definition of "good academic record", as is adopted by the State of Rajasthan deserve to be set aside with a direction to the respondents to adopt the definition of "good academic record, as given by other University.

¶204

In doing so, they should see that a candidate, who could not obtain good marks at the level of Secondary and Higher Secondary is not ousted, if he/she could secure good marks at the level of Graduation and Post Graduation. The aforesaid

¶205

¶206

quali.fication would be more relevant for appointment on the post of Lecturer. It is for the reason that at the level of Graduation and Post Graduation, a candidate takes studies in the specialised subject. At the level of Secondary or Senior Secondary, a candidate would not be matured to opt for a particular subject and even if the subject is chosen, it can be changed at the level of Graduation and Post Graduation. The "good academic record" should be based on the marks obtained at the level of Graduation and Post Graduation instead of Secondary or Senior Secondary.

¶207

The reference of definition of "good academic record" provided by other Universities in the State of Rajasthan has been given wherein weightage is given to the marks at the level of Graduation and Post Graduation and not at the level of Secondary and Senior Secondary. The respondents may accordingly be directed to reconsider the issue to provide proper definition of "good academic record". It is obviously after keeping in mind that for the post of College Lecturer, what would be more relevant is the qualification at the level of Graduation and Post Graduation.

¶208

With the aforesaid, writ petitions may be disposed of by interfering in the letter, impugned herein, so as the advertisement. The petitioners may be made entitled for

¶209

¶210

selection to the post of College Lecturer as having "good academic record" at the Level of Graduation and Post Graduation.

¶211

Learned counsel for respondents have opposed the writ petiti'ons. Learned Additional Advocate General Shri Rajendra Prasad and Shri lnderjeet Singh appearing for the State of Rajasthan along with Shri Manu Bhargava, Government Counsel, submit that there is no illegality in their action. The State of Rajasthan has rightly adopted the definition of "good academic record" as prescribed by the University of Rajasthan vide Notification dated 17th October, 2012. This court may not interfere in the advertisement as well as the Letter dated 21'' February, 2014.

¶212

The issue regarding definition of "good academic record." was previously raised in reference to the definition then existing. The Division ~ench of this court did not interfere in the definition and writ petitions in the case of Dr. !?ashmy Mair & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.. D.B. Civik Writ Petition No.20344/2013 were dismissed. The definition therein was different than what has now been adopted. The letter dated 21" February, 2014 was issued by the State Government in view of amendment in regulation of the UGC. As per amendment in the regulation of UGC, the definition of "good academic record" is /'

¶213

2 1

¶214

to be, as was provided by the "concerned University". The "concerned University" cannot mean all the Universities and if it is taken to mean all the Universities then in absence of one and same definition, it would be difficult for the State to define it.

¶215

The State Government under its discretion took a decision to adopt the definition of "good academic record", as has been provided by the University of Rajasthan. The endeavour of the State Government is to select the best and efficient candidate for discharge of duties of College Lecturer. As per definition of "good academic record" provided by the University of Rajasthan, a candidate needs to possess atleast average of 55% marks in two out of three examinations preceding Master's degree and atleast 50% marks in Graduation and any of Secondary/High School or Higher Secondary/Secondary Education or equivalent grades in the point scale wherever grade is provided. It is not necessary to possess 50% of marks at the level of Secondary and Senior Secondary both, rather, it should be in either of class and further one needs to possess 50% marks at the level of Graduation and 55% average marks.

¶216

A candidate could not secure good marks at the level of Secondary or Sr. Secondary but could secure good marks at the ,

¶217

¶218

level of Graduation and if average of marks comes to 55% then would be eligible subject to possession of 50% marks at the level of Secondary or Senior Secondary and not in both.

¶219

It is further submitted that the State Government took a decision to provide the definition of "good academic record" after necessary consideration. It was not necessary for the State Government to adopt the definition of "good academic record" as given. by any other University and favourable to the petitioners. If for the sake of argument, it is assumed that the State of Rajasthan should have been adopted the definition of "good academic record" as provided by other Universities, then a candidate lacking therein would question it in the same manner as the petitioners. The State Government cannot satisfy each candidate for the aforesaid and otherwise is required to take best suitable definition for the purpose of selection of the talented person. Accordingly, there is no arbitrariness in the action of the respondents.

¶220

It is further submitted that definition of "good academic record", as given by the University of Rajasthan, has not been adopted keeping in'mind the Rules of 1968, as was existing prior to amendment. The rule was amended long back and has not been referred in letter dated 21" February, 2014. It is only perception of the petitioners. T9ez'State of Rajasthan took

¶221

decision independently and in reference to amended provision of UGC Regulation. The argument in reference to rule then existing in the year 1968 is thus not worth acceptance.

¶222

The reference of judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Dr. Rashmy Nair. (supra) has been given to show limited jurisdiction of this court to interfere in the quakfication provided under the Rules. It cannot be on the ground raised by the petitioners but can be, if hit by the provision of the Constitution.

¶223

I have considered rival submissions made by the parties and perused the record.

¶224

The respondents issued an advertisement on 12th January, 2015 for the post of 0llee'~ecturer in different subjects. The advertisement provides for educational qualification apart from requirement of good academic record. The relevant para of the advertisement providing clarification of "good academic record" is quoted thus:

¶225

"Definition of Good Academic Record (For a!l subjects/posts): Good academic record means an average of at least 55% marks in 3 examinations preceding to Master's degree with at Least 50% marks in graduation and any one of the Secondary/High School. Hr. Secondary/Sr. Secondary or equivalent grades in the point scale wherever grading system is followed without including any grace marks and/or rounding off to make it 55% or 50% as the case may be."

¶226

¶227

The definition of "good academic record" has been. adopted by the State of Rajasthan as provided by the University of Rajasthan vide Notification dated 17th October, 2012. A candidate needs to possess average of atleast 55% of marks in three examinations preceding the Master's degree with atleast 50% marks in Graduation and any of one examination out of two at the level of Secondary/High School or Higher Secondary/Senior Secondary.

¶228

The main ground to challenge the definition of "good academic record", as provided by the State of Rajasthan vide their letter dated 2lSt February, 2014, is non-consideration of definition of "good academic record" provided by other Universities. Learned Senior Counsel Shri S.P. Sharma has referred the definition of "good academic record" provided by different Universities.

¶229

The perusal of definition of "good academic record" adopted by different Universities is more or less same. It requires 50% marks or second division at the Level of Secondary or Senior Secondary/Higher Secondary and also at the level of Graduation. The University of Kota has provided the definition of "good academic record" to mean second class from secondary class to Bachelor and in same way other Universities have also provided almost similar definition. It

¶230

¶231

provides atleast 50% marks at the level of two examinations preceding Master's degree. The main difference between the definition provided by the University of Rajasthan and other Universities is about average of 55% marks in three examinations preceding Master's degree. The requirement of average of 55% of marks is not provided by other Universities.

¶232

The question for my consideration is as to whether this court can interfere in the qualification provided by the State of Rajasthan. It is settled law that the court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot interfere in the qualification provided for the post by the State Government or by the University unless it is hit by the provision of law or the Constitution.

¶233

The case in hand is not of such nature where qualification provided by the State of Rajasthan is hit by the provision of Law or Constitution. It is for the reason that as per amended provision of UGC Regulation, th.e State Government was given Liberty to provide definition of "good academic record" as provided by the "concerned University". The meaning of "concerned University" has been emphasised by Learned counsel for petitioners but have failed to support it to mean all the Universities of a State. If it means all the universities, then one definition of "good academic record" cannot be drawn as

¶234

¶235

universities are having different definitions though not with much of difference.

¶236

Learned Additional Advocate General has given reasons to adopt definition of "good academic record" as notified by the University of Rajasthan. The earlier definition was also challenged but had been upheld in the case of Dr.Rashmi Nair (supra). I find that motive of the State of Rajasthan is to get best possible talent on the post of College Lecturer.

¶237

In the case of Dr. Rashmi Nair (supra), the issue was raised in reference to marks of Secondary or Senior Secondary and has been dealt with. In view of above, I do not find that merely for the reason that a candidate could not obtain good marks at the level Secondary or Senior Secondary but obtained good marks at the level of Graduation or Post Graduation, should be held eligible for the selection. It is moreso when the definition of "good academic record" needs possession of average of 55% marks in three qualifications precedin.g the qualification of Master's degree and 50% in Graduation and one of the examinations at the level of Secondary or Sr. Secondary etc. If a candidate could get good marks at the level of Graduation then average of three examinations can make 55% to become eligible for the post subject to 50% of marks in either of the examination at the Level of Secondary or Senior Secondary etc.

¶238

¶239

In the Light of discussion aforesaid, I do not find that terms of advertisement or Letter dated 2lSt February, 2014 issued by the State of Rajasthan can be interfered by this court. As and when qualification is prescribed by the Government, all the candidates would not be satisfied but for that reason alone, interference cannot be made in the ruies or instructions issued by the State Government, providing qualification for the post in question.

¶240

The argument has been made that a candidate having qualification of NET and SLET is eligible for the post of College Lecturer and for the qualification of NET and SLET, a candidate needs to possess "good academic record". The petitioners are having NET and SLET with good academic record yet they have been made ineligible for the post in question. The aforesaid argument is also considered. I find that what would prevail is the Regulations of UEC. As per aforesaid regulation, the definition of "good academic record" would be as provided by the concerned University. As per the aforesaid, the definition, as provided for NET and SLET cannot be adopted. If rhat would have been so, the UGC, instead of referring to the definition provided by the concerned University, could have referred the definition, as provided for NET and SLET. Thus even the last argument of the learned counsel for petitioners cannot be

¶241

¶242

accepted.

¶243

It is also stated that even UGC has amended the rule by which they have done away requirement of good academic record. It is by amending the rules though subsequent to advertisement. The selections in question have been held before the amendment in the rules by the UGC thus it need to be governed by the rules, then existing. It is settled law that rule of game cannot be changed in the midst of selection i.e. after issuance of the advertisement. If amendment made by the UGC is carried out then a candidate submitted application by default, despite not eligible, would become eligible leaving those who did not apply knowing that they are not eligible as per existing rule and in terms of advertisement. If petitioners are governed by amending the rules, it will cause discrimination among similarly placed candidates. A candidate making an application by default would get benefit, whereas, a candidate abide by Law would be deprived to get the same benefit.

¶244

In view of discussion made above, I do not find any merit in the writ petitions. They are accordingly dismissed.

¶245

FRBOHRA

Hukmichand v. State Education Departmentors

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Hukmichand v. State Education Departmentors

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaswant Kumar Saini andORS Vs State Medical and Healthors

Vikrant Dubey Vs State Medical and Healthanr

Satya Narayan andORS Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Smt Sajna Devi Sukhwal Vs State Elementary Educationors

Prahlad Ram Vs State Forest Departmentors

Shiv Shankar Mehta Vs State Education Departmentors