This single judge order dismissed a writ petition seeking appointment as Teacher Grade III Level II. The petitioner failed to distinguish the contrary decision in Prithvi Raj Songara regarding NCTE Regulations regarding B.Ed. admission eligibility.
Writ petition dismissed as not maintaining against the relevant precedent.
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. 16881/2018
Arvind Kumar S/o Shri Devendra Kumar Varhat, Aged About 35 Years, B/c Varhat (St), R/o Jhinjhawa, Post Barothi, Tehsil Bichiwara, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himanshu Shrimali For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dinesh Ojha for Mr. P.R. Singh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
12/11/2018
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against denial of appointment on the post of Teacher Grade—III, Level-II in subject English TSP ST Male pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.07.2018.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by judgment in the case of Prithvi Raj Songara v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B.C.W.P. No. 14141/2018, decided on 04.10.2018, wherein, this Court, inter alia, laid down as under:-
(2 of 2)
[CW-16881/2018]
“So far as the petitioners – Bharat Lal Kokhar, Sukha Lal Pandor and Rajendra Kumar are concerned, they have obtained admission in B.Ed. on 03.08.2011, 04.07.2014 and 25.09.2010 respectively, are not entitled to any relief, inasmuch as post 31.08.2009 notification, the only criteria for admission to B.Ed. was minimum percentage of marks in Bachelor’s Decree as per NCTE Regulations and, therefore, their marks in Post Graduation cannot be taken into consideration for judging their eligibility in terms of NCTE Regulations. This Court in the case of Puran Mal (supra) after thoroughly considering the issues involved in the matter, laid down as under:-
“In view of the above discussion, as the petitioners have obtained less than 50% marks in graduation and have taken admission in B.Ed. course after 31.08.2009, as per the NCTE Regulation dated 29.07.2011 and the directions in the case of Sushil Sompura (supra), they are ineligible for the post of Teacher Gr. III (Level-II) and, therefore, are not entitled to any relief in the present writ petitions.”
As such so far as the cases of the above petitioners i.e. Bharat Lal Kokhar, Sukha Lal Pandor and Rajendra Kumar are concerned, the same are covered by judgment in the case of Puran Mal (supra) and, therefore, the said petitioners are not entitled to any relief.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to distinguish the judgment cited by learned counsel for the respondents.
In view thereof, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
A.K. Chouhan/-21
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to appointment as Teacher Grade III Level II in subject English TSP ST Male.
Whether the eligibility criteria under NCTE Regulations dated 29.07.2011 which mandates minimum 50% marks in graduation bars the petitioner from the post.
Whether the judgment in Prithvi Raj Songara applies to the facts of the present case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Arvind Kumar
State Of Rajasthan
Arun Bhansali
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
