Special Appeal (Writ) dismissed regarding the rejection of candidature for Physical Training Instructor Gr.III post. The High Court held that applicants appearing in final year B.P.Ed exam but qualifying after the recruitment cut-off date were ineligible to apply.
Special Appeal (Writ) rejected with costs.
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
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1524/2019
(2 of 5)
[SAW-1524/2019]
About 22 Years, R/o V.p. Gamdiahda, District - Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
(3 of 5)
[SAW-1524/2019]
Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Dr. Nupur Bhati For Respondent(s) : --
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY CHATURVEDI
Order
06/01/2020
The instant Special Appeal (Writ) has been preferred by the writ petitioners Neelam Choudhary and others for assailing the order dated 30.07.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby, the joint writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11407/2019) filed by petitioners (appellants herein) for questioning the rejection of their candidature on account of ineligibility prevailing as on the date of the competitive examination was rejected.
Dr. Nupur Bhati, learned counsel for the appellants-writ petitioners vehemently urged that the petitioners were all students of final year B.P.Ed and were entitled to apply for the post of Physical Training Instructor Gr.III in terms of the recruitment Notification dated 04.05.2018. As per Dr. Bhati, the rejection of the petitioners candidature on the ground that they
(4 of 5)
[SAW-1524/2019]
had not cleared the B.P.Ed examination on the cut off date is absolutely arbitrary and perverse and hence, the impugned orders deserve to be struck down.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by Dr. Bhati and have gone through the impugned order as well as the other material available on record.
The learned Single Bench, made a reference to the 2nd proviso to Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1971’), which admittedly governs the recruitment in question and reads as below:-
“Provided that the person who has appeared or is appearing in the final year examination of the course which is the requisite educational qualification for the post as mentioned in the rules or schedule for direct recruitment, shall be eligible to apply for the post but he/she shall have to submit proof of having acquired the requisite educational qualification to the appropriate selection agency:-
(i) before appearing in the main examination, where selection is made through two stages of written examination and interview;
(ii) before appearing in interview where selection is made through written examination and interview;
(iii) before appearing in the written examination or interview where selection is made through only written examination or only interview as the case may be.”
Manifestly, the statutory provision very clearly mandates that a person who has appeared or is appearing in the final year B.P.Ed. Examination course, which is requisite education qualification for the post shall be eligible to apply, but he/she shall have to submit the proof of having acquired the requisite
(5 of 5)
[SAW-1524/2019]
educational qualification to the appropriate selection agency by the cut off date. It is an admitted position on record that the written examination for the posts was conducted on 30.09.2018, whereas the petitioners herein obtained their educational qualification of B.P.Ed. on 05.06.2019/27.06.2019. Thus, the petitioners were clearly ineligible to be considered for appointment against the posts as per the advertisement dated 04.05.2018, because they did not acquire the requisite qualification by the cut off date. A controversy identical to the one at hand was examined by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Alka Ojha Vs. RPSC & Anr. reported in AIR 2011 SC 3547 wherein, the petitioners who had even worked on the respective posts for a period of five years were not allowed to continue in service because they did not have the requisite qualification by the cut off date as notified in the advertisement for recruitment.
Seen in light of the ratio of the above Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment and the statutory provision i.e. Rule 11 of the Rules of 1971, we are of the firm opinion that the learned Single Judge was absolutely justified in denying relief to the petitioners and rejecting their writ petition by the order dated 30.07.2019, which does not suffer from any apparent error or illegality whatsoever.
As a consequence, we find no merit in the instant Special Appeal (Writ), which is hereby rejected.
Cost made easy.
(ABHAY CHATURVEDI),J
(SANDEEP MEHTA),J
65-Mamta/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether students appearing in the final year of B.P.Ed course were eligible to apply for the post of Physical Training Instructor Gr.III without having cleared the B.P.Ed examination by the cut-off da
Whether the rejection of candidature on the ground of ineligibility prevailed as on the date of the competitive examination was justified under Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Alka Ojha Vs. RPSC & AnrExplained¶59
AIR 2011 SC 3547 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Neelam Choudhary and others
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan
Director, Secondary Education, Education Department, Bikaner
Chairman, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Jaipur
Sandeep Mehta
Abhay Chaturvedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
