Dismissed

Manisha Arya D/O Shri Bhagwaddayal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC12 Feb 2021CW/1680/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the rejection of the petitioner's candidature for Lecturer posts due to perceived equivalence between her MA in Sanskrit and the required Acharya degree. The single-judge bench held that MA does not equate to Acharya and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed and held to be misconceived. All pending applications stand disposed of.

Manisha Arya D/O Shri Bhagwaddayal Vs State of… — Education and Admissions | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1680/2021

¶3

Manisha Arya D/o Shri Bhagwaddayal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Jahanpuri Tehsil Kotkasim, District Alwar

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

		Versus
1.	State Of	Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
	Education	Department Rajasthan, Government
	Secretariat,	Jaipur
2.	Rajasthan Secretary.	Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through

¶6

----Respondents

¶7

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ved Pal Shastri For Respondent(s) :

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶9

Order

¶10

12/02/2021

¶11

Counsel for the petitioner submits that she has passed M.A in Sanskrit with first division. The petitioner had both Vyakaran and Sahitya subjects in MA and is thus eligible for consideration of appointment as Lecturer in both Sahitya as well as Vyakaran.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the RPSC has wrongly rejected her candidature vide orders dated 22.1.2021 and 25.1.2021 for the post of Lecturer (Sanskrit) in Vyakaran as well as Lecturer (Sanskrit) in Sahitya respectively.

¶13

I have considered the submissions.

¶14

The qualification for the post of Lecturer (Sanskrit) as notified in the corrigendum issued by the RPSC dated 6.4.2018 is as under:

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CW-1680/2021]

¶17

“ jktLFkku yksd lsok vk;ksx] vtesj 'kqf) i= la[;k & 02@2018&19

¶18

Øekad % ,Q 6 ¼33½ ijh{kk@izk/;kid@laLd`r f’k{kk@30 fnukad 06-04-2018

¶19

vk;ksx ds foKkiu la[;k 10@ijh{kk@izk/;kid@laLdr f’k{kk@ bZih&1@2017&18 fnuakd 29-03-2018 }kjk laLdr f’k{kk foHkkx ds fy, foKkfir izk/;kid ¼fo|ky;½ ds inksa dh 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ¼i½ dks fuEukuqlkj i<h tkos %& 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ¼O;kdj.k] lkekU; O;kdj.k o lkfgR; ds fy,½ %

¶20

Shastri or equivalent traditional Sanskrit examination with Sanskrit Medium and Second Class Acharya degree or equivalent Sanskrit Medium examination in the concerned subject having minimum 48 marks with Shiksha Shastri degree or equivalent.

¶21

'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ¼fgUnh] vxza sth o bfrgkl ds fy,½ %

¶22

Second Class Post graduate degree in the concerned subject having minimum 48% marks with Shiksha Shastri/B.Ed degree.

¶23

foKkiu dh vU; 'krsZa ;Fkkor jgsaxhA”

¶24

Thus, a person must possess qualification of Shastri or equivalent traditional Sanskrit examination with Sanskrit Medium and Second Class Acharya degree or equivalent Sanskrit Medium examination in the concerned subject having minimum 48 marks with Shiksha Shastri degree or equivalent.

¶25

Qualification of MA in Sanskrit cannot be treated as equivalent to Acharya degree in concerned subject in Sanskrit Medium. The petitioner has passed M.A in Sanskrit where she has cleared subject of Sahitya Siddhant and Sahitya Gaddya and Vayakaran with Nibandh and Kavya Shastra. However, the degree and the mark sheet do not show that subjects have been cleared in Sanskrit Medium. The degree of Acharya is separately awarded in Vyakaran and Sahitya. The entire course of studies is in Sanskrit

¶26

(3 of 3)

¶27

[CW-1680/2021]

¶28

Medium. Therefore, it cannot be said that the qualification which the petitioner possesses of M.A in Sanskrit would be equivalent to Acharaya in Sahitya in Sanskrit Medium.

¶29

In view of above, the impugned order rejecting the candidature of the petitioner does not warrant any interference. 8. The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.

¶30

All pending applications shall stand disposed of.

¶31

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶32

Anu /397

Manisha Arya D/O Shri Bhagwaddayal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manisha Arya D/O Shri Bhagwaddayal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hansraj Meena Son of Kaluram Meena Vs Union of India

Baijanti Bai Meena D/O Late Fatta Ram Meena W/O Ram Singh Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Chhaju Lal Sharma Son of Shri Laxmi Narayan Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Nanuram Saini S/O Mangal Chand Saini Vs State of Rajasthan

Sanjay Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Shambhu Dayal Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary

Rekha Ram Regar S/O Shri Hanuman Vs State of Rajasthan