This order dismissed a writ petition seeking exemption from a written examination and appointment as Supervisors based on experience. The High Court held that petitioners lacked the prescribed educational qualification, making them ineligible under settled Supreme Court law.
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
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16437/2015
----Petitioners
(2 of 6)
[CW-16437/2015]
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s)
: Mr. Atul Kumar Jain.
: Mr. Sandeep Maheshwari. Ms. Priyanka Pareek.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
01/11/2022
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the
following prayer:-
“It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that your Lordship may graciously be pleased to admit and allow this writ petition and issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof thereby directing the respondents-
(I) to consider the petitioners against the vacancies of Supervisors advertised vide advertisement dated 27.04.2015 on the basis of experience and educational qualification prescribed in rules for departmental candidates which is secondary.
(ii) to exempt the petitioners from qualify the written examination held on 29.11.2015 and further they may only be selected by interview mod on the basis of experience.
Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in favour of the petitioners, may also be passed.”
(3 of 6)
[CW-16437/2015]
Brief facts of the case are that in pursuance to the advertisement dated 27.04.2015 issued by the respondents, the petitioners applied for the post of Supervisor.
Grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents have not considered their experience and denied the appointment on the post of Supervisor.
Counsel for the respondents have filed reply to the writ petition, wherein para No.6, it has been stated as under:-
“6. That the contents of para No. 8 and 9 of the writ petition are not admitted as stated b the petitioners. It is submitted that the educational qualification for the aforesaid post is mentioned in para No. 6 of the advertisement dated 27.04.2015. It has been specifically mentioned that qualification for the above noted post is graduation from the recognized University. The petitioners do not have requisite educational qualification. It is the settled law and it has been decided in the catena of judgments by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the candidates, who do not have prescribed educational qualification are not eligible to appear as aspirants/ candidates for the advertised posts. The petitioners have unnecessarily dragged in the litigation despite knowing the fact that she does not have prescribed qualification. There is not exception to the prescribed educational qualification. In view of the above facts and circumstances the present writ petition filed by the petitioners deserves to be dismisses) with exemplary costs. The qualification prescribed in para no. 6 of the advertisement dated 27.04.2015 is as under:-
"पात्रता एवएवं श शैक ् षक्षणिक क यिक य ोक यता - क व
् य 1 . भारत में ववधधि दारा साावपत त क किस किसी ववश् व व्वविदालक य में संातक कतक कीउपाधधि।
२. देवंागरी धलवप में धल्षणखित त कहएवंदी का वक यावहाररक ज्ां ताा राज साां कतक कीकिसएवं सकस्कृत का ज्ां। आवशक यक ं िक योट '- उपरि क क यिक य ोक यता के पााठक यक्रम में अएवंधतम वर्ष कतक कीपरीक्षा जिक योकिस किसीधि किसी भत भर्ती के धलए धंक यम
(4 of 6)
[CW-16437/2015]
क या अंसकिस च किसी में उलले्षणखित अपे्षणक्षत श शैक ् षक्षणिक अहता्ष ह शै में किस्षणसमधलत हसई हिक यो, क या किस्षणसमधलत हिक योंे वाल किसी हिक यो, उक्त पद के धलए आवेदं करंे के धलए पत्र हिक योग किसी त क न्तस उकिसे बिक योर्ष दारा आक यिक यो्षणजत परीक्षा कतक कीत कदंाएवंक तक श शैक ् षक्षणिक अहता्ष अ्षणज्षत करंे का किसबचत देंा हिक योगा अन्क याा आवेदं अपात्र मं जावेगा ।"
It is further submitted that scheme of the examination was also prescribed in the para 19 of the advertisement. It is relevant to mention here that Board has issued the advertisement as per the scheme of the examination and under the relevant rules. The Rajasthan Woman and child Development Department Department (State and Sub-Ordinate ) Services Rules, 1998 were amended vide notification dated 13.10.2009 which is reproduced as under: “50% till all the existing Gram Sevikas are promoted and thereafter 100% direct recruitment (75%) from open market and 25% from Anganwadi Workers was prescribed in the Rules.”
The Board has invited online application form only for the post of direct recruitment.
It is also submitted that Rajasthan Woman and Child Developent Department (State and Sub-Ordinate) Services Rules, 1998 further amended vide notification dated 02.08.2011 and the educational qualification from open market candidates has been amended and it was provided that 75% post of Supervisor from open market candidates shall be filled in only by written examination conducted by the appointing authority in accordance with the scheme and syllabus specified in the Schedule-III. The scheme and syllabus for the examination of Supervisor is according to the relevant rules, hence the candidature of the petitioners could not consider for the post of Supervisor without following the procedure as mentioned in the Rules. The candidates who have requisite qualification according to the Rules are only entitled to participate in the above noted examination and no exemption can be granted to the candidates to exempt the written examination which was held on 29.11.2015. Board has conducted the
(5 of 6)
[CW-16437/2015]
above noted examination as per the existing Rules and no relaxation for requisite qualification can be granted to the petitioners as mentioned in the relevant rules. It is further submitted that the recruitment process for the above noted examination was already completed and third party rights were also created. Hence, at this stage, no relief could be granted to the petitioners in light of subsequent development.
It is further submitted that in the clause 15 of the advertisement., it is specifically mentioned that the candidates will be given provisional admission on the basis of the information furnished by them in the online application form. It is further mentioned that issuing admission card will not mean that the board has considered their candidature finally as correct. It is further mentioned that at the time of verification of original documents, if the candidate is found to be ineligible in respect of his age, educational qualification/statues ST,SC,OBC,SBC and any other condition, in that event, his candidature can be cancelled at any stage for which the candidate shall bear the entire responsibility.”
Counsel for the respondents submitted that all the petitioners are not having the required educational qualification as per the scheme of the rules and as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement, therefore, they were not selected by the respondents in the selection process.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of ‘ State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Vijay Kumar Misra’ reported in (2017) 11 SCC 521 , in para No.8, has held as under:-
“8 . The position is fairly well settled that when a set of eligibility qualifications are prescribed under the rules and an applicant who does not possess the prescribed qualification for the post at the time of submission of application or by the cut off
(6 of 6)
[CW-16437/2015]
date, if any, described under the rules or stated in the advertisement, is not eligible to be considered for such post. It is relevant to note here that in the rules or in the advertisement no power was vested in any authority to make any relaxation relating to the prescribed qualifications for the post. Therefore, the case of a candidate who did not come within the zone of consideration for the post could not be compared with a candidate who possess the prescribed qualifications and was considered and appointed to the post. Therefore, the socalled confession made by the officer in the Court that persons haying lower merit than the respondent have been appointed as SDI (Basic), having been based on misconception is wholly irrelevant. The learned single Judge clearly erred in relying on such a statement for issuing the direction for appointment of the respondent. The Division Bench was equally in error in confirming the judgment of the learned single Judge. Thus the judgment of the learned single Judge as confirmed by the Division Bench is unsustainable and has to be set aside.”
This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, all the petitioners are not having the required educational qualification as prescribed under the Rules as well as in the advertisement; secondly, in view of the reply submitted by the respondents as well as in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Uttar Pradesh (supra), no case is made out for interference by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
MG/52
2 issues framed by the court
whether the writ petition should be allowed to exempt petitioners from qualifying the written examination and consider them for appointment based on experience despite lacking prescribed educational q
whether candidates not possessing prescribed educational qualification as per rules are eligible to be considered for the advertised post
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Vijay Kumar MisraRelied on¶59
(2017) 11 SCC 521 · Who else cites this
Urmila Sharma W/o Shri Kanti Chand Sharma And D/o Shri Radha Mohan Sharma
State Of Rajasthan Through Additional Chief Secretary, Women And Child Development Department
Inderjeet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
