Dismissed

Dinesh Chandra Damor v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC27 Nov 2018CW/16014/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed petitions challenging dismissal from final recruitment lists for Teacher Gr.-III post. The court held that candidates admitted to B.Ed. after 31.08.2009 failed to meet eligibility criteria despite earlier admission orders.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions filed by the petitioners seeking direction for appointment were dismissed for lack of merit.

Dinesh Chandra Damor Vs State of Rajasthan — Education and Admissions | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ No. 16005/2018

¶3

Manilal S/o Shri Amraji, Aged About 31 Years, Village Bodalapada, Post- Ghatol, Tehsil- Ghatol, District- Banswara

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj. Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶7

Secretary, Department Of Elementary Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶8

Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan

¶9

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Udaipur

¶10

The District Elementary Education Officer, Udaipur

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

Connected With

¶13

S.B. Civil Writ No. 16014/2018

¶14

Dinesh Chandra Damor S/o Shri Soka Damor, Aged About 37 Years, Village Amlipada, Post- Timeda Bada, Tehsil- Kushalgarh, District Banswara.

¶15

----Petitioner

¶16

Versus

¶17

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayat Raj. Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶18

Secretary, Department Of Elementary Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶19

Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶20

----Respondents

¶21

S.B. Civil Writ No. 16045/2018

¶22

Shanker Lal Meena S/o Shri Surajmal Meena, Aged About 35 Years, Village Karanauwa, Post- Khanmeen, Tehsil- Kherwara, District- Udaipur

¶23

----Petitioner

¶24

Versus

¶25

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of

¶26

(2 of 4)

¶27

Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶28

Secretary, Department Of Elementary Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶29

Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan

¶30

----Respondents

¶31

For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s)

¶32

: Mr. Ramdev Potalia

¶33

: Mr. Dinesh Ojha for Mr. P.R. Singh, AAG

¶34

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order

¶35

27/11/2018

¶36

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking a direction to the respondents to grant appointment to the petitioners on the post of Teacher Gr.-III, Level-II as per their merit pursuant to the vacancies advertised by the respondents pursuant to the advertisement 2016 amended.

¶37

The issue raised in the present writ petitions is similar to the issue raised in Rakesh Gaur v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B.C.W.P. No. 14129/2018 and another connected matters, wherein, the petitioners having been granted admission pursuant to RTET, 2009 after cut off date i.e. 31.08.2009, sought relaxation meant for candidates, who were granted admission prior to 31.08.2009 i.e. 45% marks at Graduation level / 40% marks (for reserved category candidates), which plea has been negated by this Court by its judgment delivered today simultaneously.

¶38

The status of the petitioners in the present cases is as under:-

¶39

Name of petitioner	Percentage at	Date of taking
	Graduation	admission in Teachers
		Training Course
Manilal	44%	21.08.2010

¶40

(3 of 4)

¶41

Dinesh Chandra Damor	41.72%	20.10.2010
Shanker Lal Meena	42.33%	21.10.2010

¶42

This Court in the case of Rakesh Gaur (supra), inter alia, laid

¶43

down as under:-

¶44

“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, Level-II by the respondents, the petitioners are required to comply with the requirements therewith.

¶45

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.

¶46

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.

¶47

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).

¶48

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.

¶49

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.

¶50

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.

¶51

(4 of 4)

¶52

Consequently, there is no substance in the writ petitions and the same are, therefore, dismissed.”

¶53

The issue raised in the present writ petitions, wherein, it is claimed that the delay took place in grant of admission to B.Ed. Course on account of some pending litigation pursuant to third counselling at RTET, 2009, the petitioners cannot claim themselves as eligible pursuant to the eligibility requirement as indicated in

¶54

the advertisement.

¶55

Consequently, there is no substance in the writ petitions and the same are, therefore, dismissed.

¶56

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶57

AK Chouhan/-

Dinesh Chandra Damor v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Chandra Damor v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilip Kumar Vs State and Ors.

Murari Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Durga Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Harikishan Beniwal Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Mariam Kayamkhani Vs State of Rajasthan

Anil Kumar Trivedi Vs State of Rajasthan