This writ petition challenged the advertisement for the post of fireman, seeking relaxation in educational qualifications and appointment despite lacking the required six months Basic Elementary Fireman Training Course. The High Court leaned on administrative discretion.
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.
(1 of 7)
[CW-18477/2012]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18477/2012
Petitioners
VERSUS
Respondents
(2 of 7)
[CW-18477/2012]
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. |
Mohit Soni. |
|---|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. |
SandeepSharma,DGC. |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
28/07/2020
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the
following prayer:-
“It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record relating to this case and after perusing the same may be pleased to allow the writ petition and be pleased to issue following writ or order or direction, whereby:
(i) By issuing writ of mandamus, the impugned advertisement dated 8/9/2011 may be quashed and set aside as the same has been issued prescribing qualification contrary to the schedule appended to the Rajasthan Municipal (Subordinate & Ministerial Service) Rules, 1963 and be directed to amend the advertisement in the light of rules, 1963.
(ii) By an another appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioners treating the petitioners as eligible for the post of fireman and be appointed on the post of fireman with all consequential benefits.
(iii) By an another appropriate writ, order or direction preference/relaxation may be given to the candidates who were having experience in fire fighting and has training of fire fighting of L.S.G.D. department of Govt. Of Rajasthan.
(iv) The Hon'ble Court may kindly pass such other order or a direction, which it may deem just, proper and expedient in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
(v) Casts throughout be also ordered to be awarded to the petitioners”
Brief facts of the case are that the respondents issued an advertisement on 08.09.2011 for the post of Fireman and a corrigendum was issued by the respondents, in which, the last date for submitting the application form was extended upto
(3 of 7) [CW-18477/2012]
15.02.2012. In the corrigendum, it was mentioned that that if the required number of qualified candidates would not be available then relaxation would be given for completing the required training of six months after appointment. In pursuance to the advertisement dated 08.09.2011, the petitioners applied for the post of Fireman, however, the petitioners were not selected on the said post, as none of the petitioners was having the required qualification for the post of Fireman i.e. six months Basic Elementary Fireman Training Course.
Counsel for the petitioners submitted that admittedly the petitioners were not having required qualification/course on the last date of submission of the application form i.e. 15.02.2012, however, the respondents are under obligation to consider their case for appointment on the post of Fireman and give them relaxation so that they can complete their qualification/course after appointment. Counsel further submits that the petitioners have also moved an application under the RTI Act in the year 2017, to the effect that how many posts are still lying vacant and how many candidates were granted relaxation by the Department in giving appointment to the persons who were not having the required qualification/course in the year 2014 and the respondents have not provided any information on the RTI application submitted by the petitioner. Counsel further submits that the respondents are under obligation to provide relaxation for completing the qualification/course as they have given relaxation to other candidates also. Counsel further submits that the result of the petitioners was summoned by this court vide order dated 27.04.2017, in which all the petitioners have been declared failed in the interview. In support of his contention counsel relied upon
(4 of 7)
[CW-18477/2012]
the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Piara Singh and Others , reported in (1992) 4 Supreme Court Cases 118 .
Counsel further submits that the similarly situated persons filed S.B. Writ Petition No. 10160/2011 (Ramesh Panwar VS. State of Rajasthan and Ors.) wherein on 24.01.2014 the
following order was passed:-
Counsel further submits that the posts of Fireman are still lying vacant.
Counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that petitioners were not having the required qualification on the last date of submitting the application form. Counsel further submits that writ petitions filed on behalf of similarly situated persons were dismissed by this court in the matter of Satyanaryan Prajapat and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1650/2013 and other connected petition) wherein on 21.09.2016 the following order was passed:-
“By this bunch of writ petitions, a challenge is made to the advertisement dated 8.9.2011 requiring possession of six months of Basic Elementary Fireman Training. The requirement of six months course was provided by amending the Rule vide notification dated 16th May, 2011. The condition inserted in the advertisement is thus in consonance to the Rule. The candidates possession the training course of lesser period if the eligible candidates
(5 of 7)
[CW-18477/2012]
with six months required training course are not available.
In view of the amendment in the Rule vide notification dated 16.05.2011 and having not been challenged, the prayer made by the petitioners cannot be accepted as it would be de hors the statutory provisions. If the State of Rajasthan was not having six months training programme prior to the amendment the petitioner could have suitably challenged the Rule but will Rule is not declared ultra virus, it will operate and finding advertisement to be in consonance to the Rule, the prayer made in the writ petitions cannot be granted.
In view of aforesaid, all the writ petitions are dismissed accordingly.
A copy of this order be placed in each connected file”
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Zahoor Ahmad
Rather and Ors. vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and Ors., reported in (2019) 2 Supreme Court Cases 404 in which para Nos. 26 & 27 held as under:-
“ 26. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation which has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti KK in the subsequent decision in Anita (supra). The decision in Jyoti KK turned on the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, it would not be permissible to draw an inference that a higher qualification necessarily pre-supposes the acquisition of another, albeit lower, qualification. The prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The state as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the state, as the recruiting authority, to determine. The decision in Jyoti KK turned on a specific statutory Rule under which the holding of a higher qualification could presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification. The absence of
(6 of 7)
[CW-18477/2012]
such a Rule in the present case makes a crucial difference to the ultimate outcome. In this view of the matter, the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge and in coming to the conclusion that the Appellants did not meet the prescribed qualifications. We find no error in the decision of the Division Bench.
This writ petition filed by the petitioners deserves to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, admittedly the petitioners were not having the requisite educational qualification as prescribed under the advertisement on the last date of submitting the form i.e. 15.02.2012, of six months Basic Elementary Fireman Training Course as required under the advertisement dated 08.09.2011 for the post of fireman; secondly, the argument of the petitioners that no information has been supplied by the respondents in response to the RTI application submitted by them in the year 2017, is not acceptable as the advertisement relates to the year 2011 and the application has been submitted in the year 2017;
(7 of 7)
[CW-18477/2012]
thirdly, the advertisement in question relates to the year 2011 and the respondents have given appointment to the selected persons and after a delay of nine years, I am not inclined to unsettle the settled position in the Department with regard to appointment on the post of Fireman and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am not inclined to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Zahoor Ahmad (supra).
In that view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
PREETI VALECHA /97
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the court can direct the respondent to consider the petitioners for appointment as fireman despite their lack of requisite training qualification.
Whether the court can grant relaxation in qualification requirements for posts advertised nearly ten years ago.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana and Others Vs. Piara Singh and OthersReferred¶37
State of Haryana and Others Vs. Piara Singh and Others, (1992) 4 Supreme Court Cases 118
Ramesh Panwar Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.Referred¶38
S.B. Writ Petition No. 10160/2011 (Ramesh Panwar VS. State of Rajasthan and Ors.)
Satyanaryan Prajapat and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan Ors.Distinguished¶42
Satyanaryan Prajapat and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1650/2013)
Zahoor Ahmad Rather and Ors. vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and Ors.Applied¶51
Zahoor Ahmad Rather and Ors. vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and Ors., (2019) 2 Supreme Court Cases 404
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Deepak Sharma
Rajesh Kumar
Dinesh Haritwal
Rajaram Choudhary
Dinesh Kumar Jat
Dhara Singh Gurjar
Inderjeet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
