Dismissed

Ashwani Lamba S/O Virendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC7 Feb 2022CW/1572/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the eligibility criteria prescribed in amended Educational Service Rules requiring a Masters degree for Senior Computer Instructor posts, holding that the rule-making authority's discretion in specialized technical fields should not be interfered with unless arbitrary.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with no interim relief or modification of the rules.

Ashwani Lamba S/O Virendra Singh Vs State of… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1572/2022

¶3

Ashwani Lamba S/o Virendra Singh, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of 80, Gangotri Nagar, Triveni Puliya, Gopalpura Bypass, Jaipur.

¶4

Arvind Kumar S/o Ramchandra Singh, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of V.p.o Poshani Teh. Laxmangarh, District Sikar.

¶5

Brijesh Kumar Gochar S/o Nemichand, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Village Jiyahedi Post Budhadeet Tehsil Digod Kota.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Education, Secretariate, Jaipur.

¶9

The Joint Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Secretariate, Jaipur.

¶10

The Director, Directorate Of Secondary Education, Bikaner.

¶11

Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur Through Its Secretary, Rsmssb, Durgapura, Jaipur.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. I.J. Kathuria through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Zakawat Ali, AGC through VC

¶14

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶15

Judgment

¶16

07/02/2022

¶17

The petitioners have challenged the vires of Rajasthan Educational (State and Subordinate) Service (Amendment) Rules, 2022. By these amendment rules the Rajasthan Educational (State and Subordinate) Service Rules, 2021 (hereinafter to be referred

¶18

(2 of 6)

¶19

[CW-1572/2022]

¶20

as 'the Rules of 2021') came to be amended. By virtue of this amendment following entries were added in the Schedule-II to the Rules of 2021:-

¶21

1.	Senior Computer Instructor	50%	50%	Master in Engineering (M.E.)/Master in Technology (M.Tech.) in Computer Science (CS)/ Information Technology (IT)/ Electronics & Communications Engineering (ECE)/ Electrical Engineering (EE)/Electrical & Electronics Engineering (EEE)/ Electronics & Telecommunications Engineering (ETE)/ Electronics & Instrumentation Engineering (EIE) OR M.Sc. in Computer Science (CS)/Information Technology (IT) OR Master in Computer Application (MCA)/'B' Level/'C' Level OR Any equivalent or higher qualification recognised by the Government. Basic Computer Instructor	Minimum five years experience on the post mentioned in col.6	Candidate must have Post Graduate in the same subject/one of the subjects of his graduation degree.
2	Basic Computer Instructor	100%	-	Graduate and 'A' Level/PGDCA (Minimum one year) Or Bachelor in Engineering (B.E.)/ Bachelor in Technology (B.Tech) in Computer Science (CS)/ Information Technology (IT)/ Electronics & Communications Engineering (ECE)/ Electrical Engineering (EE)/ Electrical and Electronics Engineering (EEE)/ Electronic Instrumentation & Control (EIC)/ Telecommunications & Instrumentation (TIE) OR

¶22

(3 of 6)

¶23

[CW-1572/2022]

¶24

B.Sc. in Computer
Science (CS)/ Information Technology (IT) OR
Bachelor in Computer
Application (BCA) from
a University
established by the law
in India OR
Any equivalent or
higher qualification
recognised by the Government

¶25

By these amendments thus in the Schedule-II posts of Basic Computer Instructor and Senior Computer Instructor were added. The post of Basic Computer Instructor would be filled up 100% by direct recruitment. Educational qualifications were prescribed as provided in column-4. Another post was of Senior Computer Instructor. This would be filled up 50% by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment. Promotion would be from the post of Basic Computer Instructor. Educational qualifications for direct recruitment included masters degree in various subjects, such as Engineering (M.E.), M. Tech in Computer Science, Information Technology, Electrical Engineering etc.

¶26

The grievance of the petitioners is that these educational qualifications prescribed in the rules do not categorise any of the bachelors degree and insist only on the candidates having masters degree in relevant subject. All the petitioners hold bachelors degree in Information Technology or related fields. By virtue of these rules thus they are not eligible for participating in the recruitment process which has already begun. They have therefore challenged the vires of the said rules in the present petition.

¶27

(4 of 6)

¶28

[CW-1572/2022]

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioners drew our attention to several other cadres in the State as well as of the teachers in Kendriya Vidyalayas where for similar teaching assigns educational qualifications for eligibility include bachelors degree. Learned counsel for the petitioners therefore submitted that the impugned rules be set aside and the bachelors degrees in the relevant field for the post of Senior Computer Instructor be included.

¶30

In our opinion petitioners have not made out any case for interference. What should be the eligibility criteria for selection on the posts is essentially to be decided by the rule making authority. Unless and until rules are shown to be arbitrary, unreasonable, suffering any legal or factual malafide, the Court would not substitute its wisdom for that of the rule making authority particularly in educational and technical fields. The State Government in exercise of its rule making powers have framed the rules in question. It is in the wisdom of the concerned authority to provide for minimum qualification of masters degree in the relevant field as necessary for holding the post of Senior Computer Instructor. The Court would not interfere with the wisdom of the rule making authority lightly.

¶31

Learned counsel for the Government drew our attention to an order dated 24.01.2022 passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1104/2022-Satya Narayan Saini and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. in which challenge to the eligibility criteria for the post of Basic Computer Instructor came to be rejected. Following observations may be noted.

¶32

"The short contention of the petitioners is that exclusion of three years diploma in computer science from the list of eligibility criteria contained in the said Rules for the post in question is arbitrary and

¶33

(5 of 6)

¶34

[CW-1572/2022]

¶35

discriminatory. This ground the petitioners seek to make good by pointing out that for the post of computer programming assistant, the State recognizes the said qualification as essential eligibility. According to the petitioners nature of duties and responsibilities in both cases being identical, exclusion of this qualification for the purpose of recruitment to the post of basic computer instructor amounts to discrimination.

¶36

We do not find that the petitioners have made out any case for interference. What should be the eligibility criteria for holding a particular post in public employment has essentially to be left to the discretion of the authorities. The Court would not substitute its opinion for that of recruiting authority in such specialized fields. By mere statement that the two posts namely, basic computer instructor and computer programming assistant involve identical nature of duties, responsibilities and workload, these facts do not get established. Admittedly two posts are in different cadres and carry different nomenclature. Unless and until full duty lists, the nature of job to be performed and all other relevant aspects are brought on record, the two posts cannot be held to be equivalent in all respects.

¶37

In the result the petition is dismissed."

¶38

The instances of the other posts under the State Government cited by the counsel for the petitioners relate to different posts. In absence of similarity in nature of posts, the educational qualifications prescribed in other set of posts cannot be interpolated in the present case. Example of the instructors in Kendriya Vidyalayas also would not make a case of hostile discrimination. The recruiting agencies in both cases are different. It was argued that NCTE does not insist on post graduation as minimum eligibility criteria for the post in question. As is well settled through series of judgments, it is always open for the State Government to provide for higher or more stringent qualifications from that of prescribed by the NCTE. Reference in this respect can be made to a Constitution Bench judgment of the

¶39

(6 of 6)

¶40

[CW-1572/2022]

¶41

Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Preeti Srivastava and Anr.

¶42

Vs. State of M.P. and Ors., reported in (1999) 7 SCC 120.

¶43

In the result, the petition is dismissed.

¶44

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶45

(AKIL KURESHI),CJ

¶46

KAMLESH KUMAR/65

Ashwani Lamba S/O Virendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashwani Lamba S/O Virendra Singh 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahendar Singh Bairwa Vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Karanjeet Kaur Vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Sunita Sadh Vs State of Rajasthan

Tara Bai Daughter of Shri Amar Singh Wife of Shri Suresh Kumar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Late Mool Chand Yadav Son of Late Shri Chouth Mal Yadav Vs Income Tax Officer

Gopal Lal Saini (Asi) S/O Shri Nathu Ram Saini, Vs the State of Rajasthan