The single judge dismissed writ petitions challenging rejection of candidature for Teacher Gr.-III post. The court held that the date of B.Ed. admission falls after the notification prescribing minimum marks, rendering petitioners ineligible regardless of counseling delays.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ No. 14129/2018
Rakesh Gaur S/o Ashu Ram, Aged About 30 Years, B/c Brahmin, Opposite Rotary Eye Hospital, Jaitaran, Pali.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ No. 13590/2018
Anil Kumar Trivedi S/o Mani Lal Trivedi, Aged About 30 Years, Village And Post Varsingpur, Tehsil Sangwara, District Dungarpur Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ No. 13827/2018
Radha Arya W/o Vijay Pal Sheoran, D/o Shri Ajeet Singh Arya, Aged About 30 Years, B/c Jat, Sheoran Kutir, Pragati Nagar, Sujangarh, District Churu
----Petitioner
Versus
(2 of 10)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ No. 13974/2018
Gatu Lal Ninama S/o Hirjee, Aged About 29 Years, VillageBorpikhata, Tehsil Ghatol, District Banswara, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Premlata Gaur Mr. Sajjan Singh Rathore Mr. Sukesh Bhati Mr. K.P. Raj Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dinesh Ojha for Mr. P.R. Singh, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
27/11/2018
These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners, inter alia, seeking quashing of order passed by the respondents denying appointment to the petitioners on the post of Teacher Gr.-III, Level-II pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.07.2018, a direction to the respondents to grant relaxation in minimum
(3 of 10)
required marks in Graduation and consider the candidature of the petitioners as per Clause 9.3(ii) of the advertisement and accord appointment, if found in merit.
The petitioners had qualified the Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers (‘REET’) and had acquired the requisite marks.
The respondents issued advertisement dated 31.07.2018 for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr.-III, Leve-II. The eligibility criteria indicated in para 9.1, inter alia, required Graduation with at least 45% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in this regard.
The said eligibility requirement was clarified by Clause 9.3,
which reads as under:-
“9-3 ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky;] tks/kiqj dh [k.MihB }kjk fofHkUu ;kfpdkvksa esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 20-05-2011 ds Øe esa Ldwy f’k{kk foHkkx] jktLFkku ds i=kad ,Q 7¼1½bZ-bZ@Iyku@2011 fnukad 17 twu] 2011 ,oa Li"Vhdj.k fnukad 16-09-2013 ds vuqlkj fuEu vH;FkhZ jktLFkku izkFkfed ,oa mPp izkFkfed fo|ky; v/;kid lh/kh HkrhZ] 2018 esa Hkkx ysus gsrq ik= gksaxs&
¼i½ ,sls lHkh vH;FkhZ ftUgksaus jk"Vªh; v/;kid f’k{kk ifj"kn dh vf/klwpuk fnukad 2709-2007 tkjh gksus ls iwoZ f’k{kd izf’k{k.k ikB~;Øeksa esa izos’k fy;k gS] mUgsa Lukrd Lrj ;k led{k ijh{kk esa U;wure izfr’kr vad izkIr gksus dh ck/;rk ugha gSA
¼ii½ ,sls lHkh vH;FkhZ ftUgksaus jk"Vªh; v/;kid f’k{kk ifj"kn dh vf/klwpuk fnukad 2709-2007 tkjh gksus ds ckn ijUrq vf/klwpuk fnukad 31-08-2009 ds tkjh gksus ls iwoZ f’k{kd izf’k{k.k ikB~;Øeksa esa izos’k ys fy;k Fkk] mUgsa Lukrd Lrj ;k led{k ijh{kk esa U;wure 45 izfr’kr vad izkIr gksus dh ck/;rk gSA
¼iii½ ,sls lHkh vH;FkhZ ftUgksaus jk"Vªh; v/;kid f’k{kk ifj"kn dh vf/klwpuk fnukad 31-08-2009 ds tkjh gksus ds ckn f’k{kd izf’k{k.k ikB~;Øeksa esa izos’k ys fy;k Fkk] mUgsa Lukrd Lrj ;k led{k ijh{kk esa U;wure 50 izfr’kr vad izkIr gksus dh ck/;rk gSA”
The above stipulation, which was based on the directions of
Division Bench of this Court, provided that for candidates, who had taken admission in Teachers Training Course prior to Notification dated 27.09.2007, the requirement of minimum percentage of marks was not required, for those having taken admission in Teachers Training Course between 27.09.2007 to
(4 of 10)
31.08.2009, there was requirement of minimum 45% marks and those having taken the admission after 31.08.2009 in Teachers Training Course were required to have minimum 50% marks at the Graduation level. The advertisement also provided for relaxation for the reserved category candidates.
The relevant dates of taking admission in the Teachers Training Course and percentage of marks at the Graduation level of each petitioner is as under:-
| Name of petitioner | Percentage at Graduation |
Date of taking admission in Teachers Training Course |
|---|---|---|
| Rakesh Gaur | 48.16% | 05.11.2009 |
| Anil Kumar Trivedi | 46.47% | 05.11.2009 |
| Radha Arya (OBC) | 41.833% | 04.11.2009 |
| Gatu Lal Ninama (ST) | 43.444% | 05.10.2009 |
From perusal of the above table coupled with the requirements of advertisement, as noticed hereinbefore, the candidates did not fulfill the requirement of having requisite marks at the Graduation level even with relax norms meant for reserved category candidates as all of them got admission in the Teachers Training Course after 31.08.2009.
The common case of the petitioners is that the advertisement for Pre-Teachers Education Test (‘PTET’) was issued in May, 2009, wherein, candidates having 45% marks in Graduation and reserved category candidates with 40% marks in Graduation were allowed to participate, wherein, the petitioners applied. First round of counselling was held in July, 2009, the second round of counselling was held around August and the third round of counselling was held in October, 2009 and the petitioners were granted admission in the third round of counselling, pursuant
(5 of 10)
thereto, they submitted the fees on the respective dates and were granted admission on the dates as noticed hereinbefore. The petitioners passed B.Ed. Examination.
It is claimed that as the petitioners were accorded admission pursuant to the third round of counselling held pursuant to PTET, 2009, merely because of the delay in grant of admission to the petitioners, they cannot be treated differently from the candidates, who were granted admission pursuant to first and second round of counselling, pursuant to PTET, 2009. It is further submitted that the petitioners are not at fault for the delay in admission pursuant to the third round of counselling, which was held beyond 31.08.2009 and, therefore, as the petitioners had cleared PTET, 2009 in time, they are entitled to be considered as per the requirements indicated in Clause 9.3(ii) of the advertisement as having taken admission prior to 31.08.2009.
It is, inter alia, submitted that pursuant to the applications filed by the petitioners, they have obtained higher marks than the cut off declared for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr.-III, Level-II, however, their names do not figure in the list of successful candidates selected for being called in the counselling.
It is submitted that the respondents are not justified in rejecting the candidature of the petitioners for non-fullfilment of the eligibility conditions and, therefore, the action of the respondents deserves to be set aside and they be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioners treating them as eligible and if found in merit to accord them appointment to the post of Teacher Gr.-III, Level-II.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions. It was submitted that the petitioners
(6 of 10)
were seeking to mix up two things i.e. the grant of admission pursuant to PTET, 2009 and the eligibility requirements, as indicated in the advertisement, which are independent of each other and the petitioners based on the explanation for the delay in getting admission in the Teachers Training Course, cannot seek a relaxation in the eligibility conditions and, therefore, the petitions deserve to be dismissed.
Submissions were also made that the explanation provided in the advertisement pertains to the directions of the Division Bench in Sushil Sompura & Ors. v. State & Ors. : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3964/2011, decided on 20.05.2011, which directions are specific. Condition 9.3(ii) has not been challenged by the petitioners and, even otherwise, having once participated in the selection process, it is not even open for the petitioners to question the same, which condition has been provided based on the directions of the Division Bench.
Reliance was placed on judgment in Mamta Gawan v. State & Anr. : S.B.C.W.P. No. 5010/2015, decided on 22.05.2015 which was upheld by the Division Bench in Vijaypal Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. : D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 623/2015, decided on 20.01.2016 and Puran Mal v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B.C.W.P. No. 12982/2018, decided on 19.09.2018.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
While the case of petitioner Rakesh Gaur pertains to recruitment, 2016 which was held during the year 2017 based on revised advertisement dated 11.09.2017, wherein, identical conditions as noticed hereinbefore have been provided under
(7 of 10)
Clause 6.3. The rest of the candidates have applied in the Recruitment, 2018.
The foundational submissions made by counsel for the petitioners pertain to the fact that they had appeared in PTET, 2009 and were granted admission in Teachers Training Course (B.Ed.) in the third counselling held pursuant to the said PTET, 2009, which resulted in the delay in getting the admission to the B.Ed. Course. It is claimed that those who appeared in PTET, 2009 with similar eligibility and were granted admission prior to 31.08.2009 are being treated differently than the petitioners who were granted admission pursuant to the third counselling, which is discriminatory and is not permissible in law besides the fact that petitioners were not at fault in so far as taking admission is concerned.
So far as the stipulations indicated in Clause 9.3 are concerned, a bare look at the said stipulations as quoted hereinbefore would reveal that the same refers to the Division Bench judgment dated 20.05.2011, which is the judgment in the case of Sushil Sompura (supra). In the case of Sushil Sompura (supra) the petitioners therein, had questioned the notification dated 23.08.2010 issued by the NCTE, wherein, the qualifications pertaining to minimum marks in graduation of 50% and 45% respectively, which were identical and sought permission to participate in the TET.
The Division Bench noticed the following submissions made on behalf of the NCTE and after considering all the issues involved, laid down / directed as under:-
“Submission:
“The relief prayed by the petitioners stands satisfied in view of the agreement expressed on behalf of NCTE to
(8 of 10)
the effect that in case they have passed B.A, B.Sc., B.Com., Senior Secondary or its equivalent qualification and obtained admission in the requisite courses such as B.Ed., B.El.Ed. D.Ed. etc. as mentioned in para-1 of the Notification dated 23.8.2010, prior to the prescription of the minimum qualifying marks by NCTE in Bachelor's degree or Master's Degree etc. or any other qualification equivalent thereto vide notifications dated 27.9.2007 and 31.8.2009, the minimum qualification of having 45% or 50% marks, as the case may be, in the bachelor's degree or master's degree etc. or any other equivalent qualification, shall not be insisted as stated by Mr. Kuldeep Mathur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the NCTE on being instructed by Regional Director, NCTE. Thus, the major grievance of the petitioners that their qualifications of B.Ed. B.El.Ed. etc. mentioned in para 1 are being de- recognized with retrospective effect when there was no prescription of minimum qualifying marks of 45% or 50%, as the case may be, stands redressed in view of the statement made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the NCTE. It has been further stated by the learned counsel for the NCTE that for the first time, de-novo qualifications were prescribed by the NCTE vide Notification dated 27.9.2007 and further, qualifications were prescribed vide Notification dated 31.8.2009 and in case admission has been taken by the incumbents in any of the courses of B.Ed. B.El.Ed. etc. as mentioned in para-1 of the Notification dated 23.8.2010 prior to aforesaid dates, they shall not insist for having 45% or 50% marks, as the case may be, in qualifying examination for aforesaid courses. Thus, respondents have to allow aforesaid incumbents in TET examination, 2011.”
Direction:
“The respondents are free to hold the TET examination. The prayer of the petitioners regarding inclusion of qualification of B.Com. in the group of qualification of graduation in the eligibility criteria has already been allowed. The respondents shall not insist on the qualification of having 45% or 50% marks, as the case may be, in the bachelor's degree or master's degree etc. or any other equivalent qualification, in case incumbents have obtained admission in the requisite courses such as B.Ed., B.El.Ed, Senior Secondary etc. prior to prescription of the minimum qualifying marks by NCTE vide notifications dated 27.9.2007 and 31.8.2009. It is made clear that the incumbents, who have obtained the B.Ed. etc. before the minimum qualifications were prescribed vide notifications dated 27.9.2007 and 31.8.2009, shall be allowed to appear in the TET Examination. The incumbents, who have passed out B.Ed. Course from Jammu & Kashmir, have to be dealt with on similar yard sticks in case the qualification is otherwise recognized. Let NCTE specify categories of teachers under para 4 of Notification dated 23.8.2010. As prayed by NCTE, let amended notification be issued within one month covering aforesaid aspects.”
(9 of 10)
A perusal of the above direction of the Division Bench would reveal that the emphasis was laid on the date of obtaining admission in the requisite course like B.Ed. prior to prescription of minimum qualifying marks by NCTE vide Notification dated 27.09.2007 and 31.08.2009 and no other stipulation, relaxation
and/or the qualification to the said aspect was prescribed by the Division Bench. Once the stipulation has been prescribed by the Division Bench and the same has been incorporated in the advertisement for recruitment to the post of Teacher Gr.-III, LevelII by the respondents, the petitioners are required to comply with the requirements therewith.
As to what happened pursuant to the RTET, 2009 i.e. the petitioners got admissions in the third round of counselling after the Notification dated 31.08.2009 issued by the NCTE came into force, is wholly irrelevant in so far as the judging the eligibility of the petitioners for grant of appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.-III, Level-II is concerned.
The grant of admission in the qualifying course with delay on account of repeated round of counselling, cannot control/modify the eligibility conditions, which are very specific and, therefore, the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard cannot be countenanced.
In case such an aspect regarding the delay in obtaining admission in B.Ed. was required to be examined by the respondents in each case of delay, the same would make the eligibility condition floating with a discretion with the respondents, which is not envisaged by the Rules and/or the directions of the Division Bench in the case of Sushil Sompura (supra).
(10 of 10)
The petitioners admittedly having obtained/granted the admission after 31.08.2009 and having marks less than the eligibility requirement subject to relaxation are, therefore, ineligible for grant of appointment.
The Division Bench in the case of Vijaypal Singh (supra) while relying on judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India & Ors. : (2007) 4 SCC 54 laid down that the principles of equity in a case of such nature will have no role to play. The candidate lacking qualification are not having any right to face the process of selection and even in cases where the candidates were granted appointments, it was held that they were not entitled to any relief.
In view of the above factual and legal position, the petitioners having obtained/granted admission after the cut off date i.e. 31.08.2009 and having failed as per the eligibility requirement of having 50%/45% (for reserved category candidates) marks at the Graduation level are clearly not eligible for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr.-III, Level-II.
Consequently, there is no substance in the writ petitions and the same are, therefore, dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
A.K. Chouhan/-47
3 issues framed by the court
Whether delayed admission to B.Ed. course after notification of higher marks requirement renders the candidate ineligible for recruitment.
Whether principles of equity can be invoked to relax eligibility marks requirements when the delay was caused by the counseling process.
Whether the specific directions in Sushil Sompura require modification to include candidates admitted via third round of counseling.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sushil Sompura & Ors. v. State & Ors.Referred¶77
Sushil Sompura & Ors. v. State & Ors. : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3964/2011
Mamta Gawan v. State & Anr.Referred¶71
Mamta Gawan v. State & Anr. : S.B.C.W.P. No. 5010/2015
Vijaypal Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.Referred¶71,93
Vijaypal Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. : D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 623/2015
Puran Mal v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.Referred¶71
Puran Mal v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B.C.W.P. No. 12982/2018
Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India & Ors.Relied on¶93
Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India & Ors. : (2007) 4 SCC 54 · Who else cites this
Rakesh Gaur
Anil Kumar Trivedi
Radha Arya
Gatu Lal Ninama
State Of Rajasthan
Arun Bhansali
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
