Allowed

State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Jugnu Joshi and Ors.

Rajasthan HC2 May 2017SAW/291/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Division Bench quashed orders upholding candidates' eligibility for Teacher Grade III post. Court held that amendment to Rule 266(3) of 1996 Rules (2011) deleted the proviso allowing appearing candidates to apply, rendering respondents ineligible as they lacked qualification by the cut-off date.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated January 30, 2017 quashed and set aside; special appeals allowed.

State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs Jugnu Joshi and Ors. — Education and Admissions | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 304 / 2017

¶3

The State of Rajasthan Through Secretary,, Department of Education, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶4

The Chairman,, The Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer.

¶5

Coordinator,, Directorate Elementary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶6

Director,, Directorate of Primary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶7

The Secretary,, Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

----Appellants Versus

¶9

Maga Ram S/o Sh. Thakra Ram,, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Village Sarnoa Ka Tala, Tehsil- Sindhari, District Barmer

¶10

Hanuman Ram S/o Sh. Dharam Ram,, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Village- Jeruponiyon Ka Tala, Tehsil- Sindhari, District- Barmer

¶11

Anchal Patidar D/o Sh. Pavan Kumar Patidar,, Aged About 21 Years, R/o V/p Kotada, Tehsil- Garhi, District Barmer

¶12

Jyoti D/o Sh. Kailash Chand Regar,, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Regron Ka Mohalla Kesarpura, Tehsil- Pisangan, District Ajmer

¶13

Puranima Pawar D/o Sh. Kailash Chand Panwar,, Aged About 21 Years, R/o V/P Mochi Mohalla Pisagan, Tehsil- Pisangan, District Ajmer

¶14

Rakesh Kumar Bhati S/o Sh. Girdhari Ram Bhati,, Aged About 21 Years, R/o V/New Bus Stand Goshala Nimboi, The- Jaitaran District Pali

¶15

Kalyan Nain S/o Sh. Amar Chand,, Aged About 20 Years, R/o V/P Veer Teja Ji Chok Karkeri, Tehsil- Roopangarh, District Ajmer

¶16

Bharat Singh S/o Sh. Sumer Singh,, Aged About 19 Years, R/o V/P Betwasia, TehsilOsian, District Jodhpur

¶17

Dinesh Kumar Maneria S/o Sh. Shanti Lal Maneria,, Aged About 24 Years, R/o V/P Batharda, Tehsil- Vallabhnagar, District Udaipur

¶18

Omprakash S/o Sh Narna Ram,, Aged About 23 Years, R/o V/P Dhamana Ka Goliya, Dhamana, District Sanchore

¶19

(2 of 11)

¶20

[SAW-304/2017]

¶21

Fateh Chand S/o Sh. Hira Lal,, Aged About 24 Years, R/o V/P Dhani Khariya Modi Wali Chirana, Tehsil- Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu

¶22

Sita Ram Gurjar S/o Sh. Suva Lal Gurjar,, Aged About 23 Years, R/o V/P Khatushyam Ji Road Dhani Bhopalwali Ward No. 5, Reengus, TehsilSri Madhopur, District Sikar

¶23

Rekha Choudhary D/o Sh. Hanuman Sahay Choudhary, Aged About 21 Years, R/o V/P Jhai Bhamoria, Tehsil- Sanganer, District Jaipur

¶24

Kamlesh Chauhan D/o Sh. Dinesh Kumar,, Aged About 21 Years, R/o V/P Shiv Colony, Tehsil- Pisangan, District Ajmer

¶25

Mahendra S/o Sh. Ramchandra,, Aged About 22 Years, R/o V/P Dhiran Meghwal Palli-2, Tehsil- Osian, District Jodhpur

¶26

----Respondents

¶27

Connected With

¶28

D.B. Writ Misc Application No. 91 / 2017

¶29

¶30

D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.295/2017

¶31

The State of Rajasthan Through Secretary. Department of Education,, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶32

The Chairman, the Board of Secondary Education,, Rajasthan, Ajmer.

¶33

Coordinator, Directorate Elementary Education,, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶34

Director, Directorate of Primary Education,, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶35

The Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department,, Govt. of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur

¶36

----Applicants/Appellants

¶37

Versus

¶38

Mohan Lal Banajara S/o Shri Jagdish Banajara,, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Kundal Railway Gate Near Cement Factory Tehsil Dabok, Dist. Udaipur.

----Respondent

(3 of 11)

SAW-304/2017]

Connected With

D.B. Writ Misc Application No. 90 / 2017

¶44

¶45

D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.291/2017

¶46

The State of Rajasthan Through Secretary,, Department of Education, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶47

The Chairman,, The Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer.

¶48

Coordinator,, Directorate Elementary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶49

Director,, Directorate of Primary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶50

The Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department,, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶51

----Petitioners

¶52

Versus

¶53

Jugnu Joshi S/o Shri Pradeep Joshi,, Aged About 20 Years, R/o V/p Vamasa Sagawara, District Dungarpur.

¶54

Krishan Gopal S/o Shri Narayan Lal,, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Village Gurjaro Ka Kua, Dudor Marwar, District Pali.

¶55

Deepak Bunkar S/o Shri Dhanpal Bunkar,, Aged About 20 Years, R/o V/P Anjana, Tehsil Garhi, District Banswara.

¶56

Minakshi Patidar D/o Shri Bhupendar Patidar,, Aged About 22 Years, R/o V/P Padal Bari, Tehsil Ghatol, District Banswara.

¶57

Vishal Kalal S/o Shri Ramesh Kalal,, Aged About 21 Years, R/o V/P Tejpur, Tehsil & District Banswara.

¶58

Shubham Pandya S/o Shri Upendra Pandya,, Aged About 21 Years, R/o V/P Asoda, Tehsil Garhi & District- Banwara.

¶59

Megha Vaishnav D/o Shri Dilip Kumar Vaishnav,, Aged About 19 Years, R/o V/p Vaishnav Mohalla Ghatol, Tehsil- Ghatol & DistrictBanswara.

¶60

Ranu Pandya D/o Shri Upendra Pandya,, Aged About 24 Years, R/o V/P Asoda, Tehsil Garhi & District- Banwara.

¶61

Chimana Ram S/o Shri Gayad Ram Dewasi,, Aged About 20 Years, R/o VP Raiko Ka Bass, Balupara, Tehsil- Jaitaran, District-

(4 of 11)

[SAW-304/2017]

Pali.

Jagdish Ram S/o Shri Mohan Lal,, Aged About 21 Years, R/o V/P Jhabra, Tehsil- Bhaniyana, District- Jaisalmer.

¶66

Ramcharan Prajapat S/o Shri Kana Ram Prajapat,, Aged About 19 Years, R/o V/P Gotan Balupura, Tehsil- Merta City, District- Pali.

¶67

Vidhi Pandya D/o Shri Yashwant Pandya,, Aged About 20 Years, R/o V/P Holi Chowk, Jain Temple Ke Pass, Anjana, Tehsil Garhi & District- Banswara.

¶68

Dhiraj Purohit S/o Shri Harish Chandra Purohit,, Aged About 22 Years, R/o V/P Padardi Badi, Tehsil- Sagwara DistrictDungarpur.

¶69

Chanchal Choubisa D/o Shri Ramesh Chandra Choubisa,, Aged About 19 Years, R/o V/P Near Narsingh Temple Sadar Bazar Bhinder, Tehsil Vallabhnagar, District- Udaipur.

¶70

Neetu Kumari Vairagi D/o Shri Ramesh Chandra Vairagi,, Aged About 19 Years, R/o V/P Atal Seva Kendra Palana Kalan, TehsilMavli & District- Udaipur.

¶71

Lala Ram S/o Shri Kirat Ram,, Aged About 19 Years, R/o V/P Raisar, Tehsil Shegarh & District Jodhpur.

¶72

Subhash Chandra Kharadi S/o Shri Veeram Das Kharadi,, Aged About 21 Years, R/o VP Amaliya, Tehsil- Jhadol, District- Udaipur.

¶73

Dipesh Kumar Khatik S/o Shri Shanti Lal Khatik, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Tehsil & District Udaipur.

¶74

Naresh Kumar Kalal S/o Shri Dali Chand Kala,, Aged About 33 Years, R/o V/P Chanawada, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur.

¶75

Ajay Singh S/o Shri Dhara Singh,, Aged About 21 Years, R/o V/P Nayavas, Baseri District Dhulpur.

¶76

Anshuman Singh Tomar S/o Shri Sanju Singh Tomar,, Aged About 19 Years, R/o V/P Reviyapura, Ratanpur, Tehsil- Baseri, District Dhulpur.

¶77

Mahendra Patidar S/o Shri Velji Patidar,, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Tehsil Bagidaro & District Banswara.

¶78

Priyanka Patidar S/o Shri Narendra Patidar,, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Tehsil- Bagidaro & District Banswara.

¶79

Abhishek Patidar S/o Shri Kehmji Patidar,, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Tehsil Bagidora & District Banswara.

¶80

(5 of 11)

¶81

[SAW-304/2017]

¶82

Himanshu Patidar S/o Shri Devilal Patidar,, Aged About 20 Years, R/o V/P Vikash Nagar Karji, Tehsil Bagidora & District Banswara.

¶83

Ashok Kumar Khichar S/o Shri Dhura Ram Khichar,, Aged About 22 Years, R/o V/P Vikash Kuchor Aguni, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner.

¶84

----Respondents

¶85

For Appellant(s) : Mr.P.R.Singh, Additional Advocate General For Respondent(s) : Mr.O.P.Sangwa,

¶86

Mr.Hanuman Singh Choudhary

¶87

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶88

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶89

Judgment

¶90

02/05/2017

¶91

In Misc. Application Nos.91/2017 and 90/2017 :

¶92

This controversy came up before this Division Bench in D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) Nos.291/2017 and 295/2017.

¶93

After hearing the learned counsel the appellant, Mr.P.R.Singh, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr.D.K.Godara, learned counsel for the respondent in the aforementioned two appeals at length, this Court passed the orders on April 12, 2017 dismissing D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) Nos.291/2017 and 295/2017 and upholding the impugned order dated January 30, 2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.8432/2016 and S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.8077/2016 respectively.

¶94

(6 of 11)

¶95

[SAW-304/2017]

¶96

Before the orders dated April 12, 2017 could be signed, Mr.P.R.Singh, learned Additional Advocate General mentioned the matter before us and sought permission to move appropriate applications to bring to the notice of this Court that Rule 266(3) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 ( hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1996’ ) was amended with effect from May 11, 2011. The mentioning culminated into D.B. Civil Misc. Applications No.90/2017 and 91/2017 preferred by Mr.P.R.Singh, learned Additional Advocate General.

¶97

On such applications, this Division Bench took note of the aforesaid amendment and since the decision pronounced a day before was yet to be signed by the Bench, a notice was made to the non-applicants through their respective counsel, returnable on May 02, 2017.

¶98

In light of the fact that the aforesaid amendment was in fact made with effect from May 11, 2011 in Rule 266(3) of the Rules of 1996, the applications are allowed and the unsigned orders dated April 12, 2017 are recalled and the special appeals are re-heard and adjudicated upon afresh, in view of the relevant Rules in vogue.

¶99

In D.B.Civil Special Appeals (Writ) Nos.291/2017, 295/2017 and 304/2017 :

¶100

Since the controversy involved in all the three special appeals is common, therefore, with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, they have been heard together finally and are being decided by this common judgment.

¶101

(7 of 11)

¶102

[SAW-304/2017]

¶103

Brief facts, as noticed by this Court, are that the respondents had qualified the Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers (REET) 2015 for being qualified for recruitment to the post of Teacher Grade III. An advertisement was issued by the appellants on July 06, 2016 for recruitment to the post of Teacher Grade III and the last date for submission of the application form was August 01, 2016. The candidates were required to have the academic qualification of BSTC, but as per the advertisement, those candidates, who were appearing in the final year of the BSTC Course were permitted to submit the form. The result of the qualifying examination i.e.BSTC Course was declared on October 28, 2016, whereas the last date for submission of the form was August 01, 2016.

¶104

The learned Single Judge proceeded to decide the matter on the basis of the following proviso to Rule 266 of the Rules of 1996, which is as follows:-

¶105

“ 266. Academic qualification. A recruit must possess minimum qualification as under:-

¶106

Provided that the person who has appeared or is appearing in the B.Ed./BSTC/DSE/B.Ed. (Special Education) Examination, shall be eligible to apply for the post of primary and upper primary school teachers (General Education / Special Education) but he shall have to submit proof of having acquired the said educational qualification to the (District Establishment Committee) before the declaration of the result of the competitive examination.”

¶107

(8 of 11)

¶108

[SAW-304/2017]

¶109

As per the aforesaid proviso, the appellants would have no case, but it was pointed out by Mr.P.R.Singh, learned Additional Advocate General that the proviso alongwith Rule 266(3) of the Rules of 1996 stood amended with effect from May 11, 2011, and therefore, the basic analogy of the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge faltered, because the amended Rule 266(3) was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge.

¶110

The relevant portion of the Notification dated May 11, 2011 reads as follows:-

¶111

“GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN

¶112

DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT & PANCHAYATI RAJ

¶113

(PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPARTMENT)

¶114

NOTIFICATION

¶115

No.F.4(7)Am/Rule/Legal/PR/2010/825 Jaipur, Dated 11-5-2011

¶116

In exercise of the powers conferred by section 102 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (Act No.13 of 1994) and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, the State Government hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, namely:-

¶117

1. Short title and commencement.- (1) These rules may be called the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Second Amendment) Rules, 2011.

¶118

2. Amendment in rule 266.- The existing clause (3) of rule 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, hereinafter referred to as the said rules, shall be substituted by the following:

¶119

“(3) Primary and Upper Primary

¶120

School Teacher (100% by direct recruitment)

¶121

(a) General Education

¶122

(9 of 11)

¶123

[SAW-304/2017]

¶124

Level - (i) Classes I to V	Qualifications as laid down by
	National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (Central Act No.35 of 2009) from time to time.
Level – (ii) Classes VI to VIII	Qualifications as laid down by National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (Central Act No.35 of 2009) from time to time.

¶125

(b) Special Education

¶126

Level - (i) Classes I to V	Qualifications as laid down by National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (Central Act No.35 of 2009) from time to time.
Level – (ii) Classes VI to VIII	Qualifications as laid down by National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (Central Act No.35 of 2009) from time to time.

¶127

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .”

¶128

It is settled law that a candidate, who was not fulfilling the basic eligibility criteria on the cut off date, cannot be allowed

¶129

(10 of 11)

¶130

[SAW-304/2017]

¶131

to continue to participate in the selection process.

¶132

In the present cases, challenge to the eligibility criteria was laid on the strength of proviso to Rule 266(3) of the Rules of 1996, which was existing prior to its amendment in May, 2011 by the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Second Amendment) Rules, 2011 and once Rule 266(3) of the Rules of 1996 was substituted by the Amendment Rules, 2011, the previous Rule lost its significance alongwith the proviso concerned. The earlier proviso being a component of Rule 266(3) of the Rules of 1996 as it was then existing, stood deleted alongwith Rule 266(3) of the Rules of 1996 and was substituted by the amended Rule 266(3) and did not include the language of the earlier proviso, had prompted the learned Single Judge to believe that the candidates, who were still appearing in the BSTC Course and had acquired the requisite qualification before declaration of the result of the competitive examination, were in fact entitled to participate in the recruitment process of Teacher Grade III, pursuant to the advertisement dated July 06, 2016.

¶133

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case alongwith the Notification dated May 11, 2011, this Court is of the opinion that once the proviso permitting the candidates appearing in the final year of BSTC Course to submit a proof of their possessing the requisite educational qualification to the District Establishment Committee before declaration of the result of the competitive examination was deleted, then there will be no scope for such BSTC Course

¶134

(11 of 11)

¶135

[SAW-304/2017]

¶136

holders to enter into the fray of eligible candidates, as then admittedly, they would not have possessed the qualification of BSTC Course before the last date for submission of the application form.

¶137

In light of the aforesaid discussion, the present special appeals are allowed and the impugned order dated January 30, 2017 is quashed and set aside, as the respondents do not possess the requisite education qualification uptil the cut off date notified for submission of the application forms, as per the advertisement dated July 06, 2016 and were thus, not entitled to be considered for selection, in view of the aforementioned amendment in Rule 266(3) of the Rules of 1996 alongwith its proviso.

¶138

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)CJ.

¶139

Skant/-

State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Jugnu Joshi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Jugnu Joshi and Ors.

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

Union of India and Ors. Vs Prakash and Anr.

Nitin Spinners Limited, Bhilwara Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sanjeev Kumar Sharma Vs State

State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs Mohan Lal Banajara

M/S.Jan Kalyan Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs State and Ors.

Dalpat Raj Bhandari Vs State and Ors.