Dismissed

Mukesh Singh Bhati v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC20 Nov 2018CW/4593/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

C And Shia seeks appointment as a teacher after qualifying in an unreserved category based on OBC status. HC rejected the petition holding that eligibility must be assessed on the application date, and since the petitioner applied without a valid caste certificate, he was required to meet the 60% marks requirement for the general category, which he failed to do.

What did the court decide?

Claim for grant of appointment in either general or OBC category dismissed.

Mukesh Singh Bhati Vs State of Rajasthan… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ No. 4593/2018

¶3

Mukesh Singh Bhati S/o Shri Mohan Singh Bhati, R/o J.j. Colony, Behind Police Station, Pindwara, District Sirohi.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

The Zila Parishad, Sirohi, Through The Chief Executive Officer.

¶8

The District Establishment Committee, Zila Parishad, Sirohi.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Khet Singh. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikas Choudhary for Mr. S.S.Ladrecha, AAG.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶12

Order

¶13

20/11/2018

¶14

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to issue appointment order to the petitioner as per his merit considering his candidature either as a general candidate or an OBC candidate.

¶15

The petitioner appeared in the Rajasthan Teacher Eligibility Test, 2012 (‘RTET’) in the category of Male (OBC), and obtained 54% marks and qualified the same. The said appearance in the RTET, 2012 was made on the basis of a non-creamy layer OBC certificate dated 21/3/2012 (Annex.2).

¶16

(2 of 5)

¶17

[CW-4593/2018]

¶18

An advertisement for recruitment for the post of Teachers Gr.III, 2013 was issued on 11/8/2013 (Annex.3) inter alia providing for educational and other eligibility requirements, which other than the educational qualification provided that a candidate must have passed RTET as per the guidelines issued by the National Council for Teacher Education (‘NCTE’), and further providing that those candidates having less than 60% marks in RTET and having been declared successful would be subject to the outcome of Special Leave Petition pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikas Kumar Agarwal.

¶19

It is claimed that on account of non-availability of noncreamy layer OBC Certificate, the petitioner applied for the post of general teacher Gr.III Level II in subject Science and Maths in ‘unreserved category’ and secured 164.92 marks and the cut-off for general category candidates was 151.93 marks.

¶20

In the judgment delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikas Kumar Agawal, it was held that OBC Candidates despite taking benefit of relaxed norms for the qualification of RTET were entitled to migrate to general category and, therefore, the result was revised in 2017 and the petitioner was placed in the list of successful candidates (Annex.7) at serial no.8, after verifying his documents. However, it is claimed that despite name of the petitioner appearing in the list Annex.7, he has not been issued the appointment order. On approaching the Zila Parishad, he was communicated that as the petitioner had applied under the general category and has not obtained the requisite marks i.e. minimum 60% in RTET, his candidature has been rejected.

¶21

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has obtained higher marks than the cut-off in the

¶22

(3 of 5)

¶23

[CW-4593/2018]

¶24

general category and even in OBC category he has obtained higher marks and, therefore, in whatever category the petitioner is considered, he is entitled to be offered appointment and action of the respondents in this regard is without any basis.

¶25

Submissions have been made that merely because the petitioner applied in general category, his having passed the RTET examination as OBC candidate cannot be washed off and, therefore, the action of the respondents deserves to be set aside.

¶26

Another submission was made that as the petitioner was not in possession of current OBC non-creamy layer certificate, he was forced to apply as a general category candidate, though a certificate in this regard was issued on 11/12/2015 and, therefore, the petitioner has to be treated as an OBC candidate and offered appointment.

¶27

Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. It was submitted that once the petitioner applied in the general category, he was required to fulfill all the eligibility conditions of a general category candidate including minimum 60% marks in RTET and once the petitioner had admittedly secured only 54% marks, he was ineligible and was rightly not offered appointment and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶28

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶29

It is not in dispute that the petitioner applied for the post of Teacher Gr.III Level II for subjects Science and Maths in unreserved category. For whatever reason, the petitioner was not in possession of OBC non-creamy layer certificate, it is an admitted fact that he had no such valid certificate at the time of

¶30

(4 of 5) [CW-4593/2018]

¶31

making the application. Once the petitioner applied in unreserved category, he was indeed required to fulfill all the requisite criteria/eligibility conditions of a general category candidate. It is an admitted position that a general category candidate was required to obtain minimum 60% marks in RTET and petitioner had secured 54% marks only. Merely because the petitioner qualified in the RTET in OBC Category is not sufficient for making him eligible in terms of advertisement, as the advertisement specifically provided for 60% marks in RTET and not that a candidate must be RTET qualified.

¶32

In these circumstances, even if the petitioner had qualified RTET based on his status as indicated therein, having obtained less than 60% marks he was not eligible as a general category candidate for the post of Teacher Gr.III Level II.

¶33

So far as the submission made regarding having obtained more marks than the general category candidates is concerned, the same by itself cannot make the petitioner entitled for appointment unless his ineligibility on account of having obtained less than 60% marks in RTET is taken care of, which aspect irrespective of submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be addressed.

¶34

In view of the above fact situation, as the petitioner did not fulfill the eligibility conditions, it cannot be said that the respondents were not justified in refusing the appointment to the petitioner as a general category candidate.

¶35

So far as the status of the petitioner as an OBC candidate is concerned, admittedly the petitioner had not applied as OBC candidate and applied as a general category candidate only and on

¶36

(5 of 5)

¶37

[CW-4593/2018]

¶38

the date of application, admittedly he was not in possession of requisite certificate in this regard.

¶39

It is well settled that the eligibility conditions have to be examined on the last date of submissions of the application forms and not on the date of publication of the result as laid down in U.P.Public Service Commission vs. Alpana : (1994) 2 SCC 723 .

¶40

In view of the above, the claim of the petitioner for grant of appointment in either category cannot be countenanced.

¶41

There is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.

¶42

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶43

Baweja/22

Mukesh Singh Bhati v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Singh Bhati v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

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

Laldas Vs State of Rajasthan

The Executive Eng.Phed,Bhilwara Vs Bhagwan Das and Anr.

Sohan Kanwar Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Bhudev Sharma Vs the M.D. Rsrtc and Anr.

Roop Lal Damor Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Krishan Kumar Vs the State of Rajasthan