Single judge quashed RPSC order rejecting petitioner's Headmaster candidature due to lack of experience. Court held experience as Vidhyarthi Mitra qualified under precedent and directed consideration of petitioner's eligibility.
Respondents directed to consider petitioner's candidature and grant appointment if eligible, with notional pay and seniority.
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 Petition No. 6812 / 2014
Shravan Kumar Meghwal S/o Sh. Chamna Ji, aged about 29 years, R/o Meron Ka Vas, Holi Chowk, Post Kalandri, District Sirohi, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Jangid.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Khet Singh.
Mr. B.L. Bhati.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
16/03/2018
This writ petition was filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner’s experience for the purpose of appointment on the post of Headmaster (Secondary School), recruitment whereof was held vide advertisement dated 17.2.2012.
During pendency of the writ petition, the respondent - RPSC has supplied the reasons for rejection of petitioner’s candidature, which rejection has been filed alongwith the second stay application as Annex.A/10, wherein, it has been indicated that the
(2 of 3)
[CW-6812/2014]
petitioner was not having requisite experience on account of his experience as Vidhyarthi Mitra , therefore, the petitioner was ineligible.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the said determination by the respondent - RPSC is factually incorrect, inasmuch as, the petitioner has the requisite experience and the action on part of the respondent – RPSC in not considering the experience of petitioner as Vidhyarthi Mitra, is against the law laid down by this Court.
It is submitted that in the case of Nand Lal Purohit v. RPSC & Anr. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5947/2014 , decided on 20.11.2015, it has been laid down that experience acquired by the petitioner therein as Guest Faculty was sufficient for taking into consideration the experience as required under the advertisement, which judgment has been upheld in D.B. Special Appeal (W) No.293/2017 (RPSC v. Nand Lal Purohit & Anr.) , decided on 23.5.2017 and following the said judgment in Asu Ram v. State of Raj. & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6715/2016 , decided on 28.3.2017, it has been held that experience of working as Vidhyarthi Mitra also is required to be taken into consideration. The said judgment in the case of Asu Ram (supra) has also been upheld by the Division Bench in D.B. Special Appeal (W) No.887/2017 (State of Raj. & Ors. v. Asu Ram) decided on 11.10.2017 and, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to the same relief as given in the case of Nand Lal Purohit (supra) and Asu Ram (supra).
Initially, during course of submissions, an objection was
(3 of 3)
[CW-6812/2014]
raised by learned counsel for the respondent - RPSC that it was not clear from the documents as to when the petitioner has completed his B.Ed. course as experience subsequent thereto only would be taken into consideration.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed the markssheet of B.Ed. Examination 2006 of the petitioner for perusal of Court indicating the petitioner having qualified the said examination. In view thereof, the objection raised in this regard, has no substance.
In view of the above fact situation and law laid down by this Court, the order dated 8.12.2016 (Annex.A/10) passed by the respondent – RPSC rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on account of ineligibility indicated therein, cannot be sustained. The same is, therefore, quashed and set aside.
The respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner based on the experience as indicated by him. In case, the petitioner is otherwise eligible, he may be accorded appointment on the post of Headmaster (Secondary School) pursuant to the advertisement dated 17.2.2012. The petitioner would be entitled to notional benefits of pay scale and seniority till the date of actual appointment at par with the persons appointed, who were lower in merit to the petitioner.
Needful may be done by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of this order.
(ARUN BHANSALI)J.
sumit-135
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's experience as Vidhyarthi Mitra should be considered for headmaster recruitment.
Whether the respondent RPSC's rejection order based on ineligibility due to lack of experience can be sustained.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nand Lal Purohit v. RPSC & AnrReferred¶22
Nand Lal Purohit v. RPSC & Anr : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5947/2014
RPSC v. Nand Lal Purohit & AnrReferred¶22
D.B. Special Appeal (W) No.293/2017 (RPSC v. Nand Lal Purohit & Anr.)
Asu Ram v. State of Raj. & Ors.Referred¶22
Asu Ram v. State of Raj. & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6715/2016
State of Raj. & Ors. v. Asu RamReferred¶22
D.B. Special Appeal (W) No.887/2017 (State of Raj. & Ors. v. Asu Ram)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shravan Kumar Meghwal
State of Rajasthan
Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer
Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission
Arun Bhansali
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
