Allowed

Praveen Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC13 Jul 2023CW/12760/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the rejection of the petitioner's candidature for a Special Teacher post. The Court held that the recruitment Rules and Advertisement did not require RCI registration at the time of application, and the statutory provision requiring enrollment applies to holding office, not making the application.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order canceling candidature quashed; respondents directed to accord appointment to the petitioner with all consequential benefits.

Praveen Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:21199]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12760/2022

¶4

Praveen Kumar S/o Shri Sohan Lal, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 6, Tehsil Chhoti Sarvan, Bari, District Banswara (Rajasthan).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner Rajasthan. 3. District Education Officer (Head Quarter), Elementary Education, Banswara (Raj.).

¶9

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Banswara (Rajasthan).

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Lokesh Mathur.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mr.	Pankaj Sharma, AAG. Rishi Soni.

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶13

Order

¶14

13/07/2023

¶15

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the order dated 04.08.2023 (Annex.13), whereby, the candidature of the petitioner on the post of Special Teacher Level I (M.R.) has been rejected holding him ineligible on account of lack of having registration with Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) till last date of filing application i.e. 16.02.2022.

[2023:RJ-JD:21199]

[CW-12760/2022]

(2 of 7)

The advertisement dated 31.12.2021 was issued for recruitment on the post of Teacher Grade III (Level I) Special Education for TSP Area.

¶20

The petitioner applied and after getting short listed his documents were verified and his name was included in the select list dated 17.04.2022 (Annex.8) and was allotted District Banswara.

¶21

When the petitioner approached the respondent – Zila Parishad, by impugned order dated 04.08.2022, he was held in-eligible, as his registration with the RCI was dated 25.02.2022, which was after the last date of making application i.e. 16.02.2022 and that he had even applied for the same after the last date i.e. on 24.02.2022.

¶22

Feeling aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that a bare look at the advertisement Annex.5 reveals that no where requirement of registration with the RCI has been indicated as the eligibility. Reference was made to Clause 10.2 & 10.6 of the advertisement dealing with the eligibility requirement.

¶24

Further submissions have been made that the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (‘the Rules of 1996’), which deals with the provisions pertaining to academic qualification under Rule 266, also does not provide for any such requirement and as such, the rejection of petitioner’s candidature on account of alleged ineligibility deserves to be set-aside.

[2023:RJ-JD:21199]

[CW-12760/2022]

(3 of 7)

Further submissions have been made that the respondents have granted appointment to a similarly situated candidate, who also had obtained the registration certificate from RCI after the last date of application on the purported ground that the application was made by her before the last date, which classification is without any basis.

¶29

Submissions have also been made that even in terms of provisions of Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992 (‘the Act of 1992’), it cannot be said that the petitioner was ineligible for being accorded appointment by the respondents.

¶30

It was prayed that the order impugned be set aside and the respondents be directed to accord appointment to the petitioner with all consequential benefits.

¶31

Learned AAG appearing for the respondents made submissions that the petitioner applied for the post of Special Teacher and the recruitment of Special Teachers besides the provisions of the Rules of 1996 is governed by the Act of 1992, which under Section 13 and 19 requires registration of the Rehabilitation Professionals, which includes Special Teachers for educating and training the handicapped and, therefore, as admittedly on the last date of application, the petitioner had no registration with the RCI and he had not even applied for the same, the petitioner was ineligible and has rightly been held ineligible by the respondents and, therefore, the petition deserves dismissal.

[2023:RJ-JD:21199]

[CW-12760/2022]

(4 of 7)

Submissions have also been made that subsequent to the said recruitment another recruitment is under way and on that count also, the petition deserves dismissal.

¶36

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶37

It is not in dispute that the present recruitment is governed by Rules of 1996, which inter-alia provides following qualification for Primary and Upper Primary School Teacher (Special Education):-

¶38

“(B) Special Education Qualification as laid down by the National Level- (i) Class I to V Council of Teacher Education under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (Central Act.No.35 of 2009), from time to time and must have passed the R.E.E.T./R.T.E.T..”

¶39

The advertisement dated 31.12.2021 inter-alia provides the following with regard to the qualification:-

¶40

“10-2 v/;kid ysoy izFke] lkekU; f”k{kk ds inksa gsrq izkjfEHkd f”k{kk esa f}o’khZ; Mh-,y-,M] lkekU; f”k{kk mRrh.kZ gksuk vfuok;Z gS rFkk ysoy izFke fo”ks’k f”k{kk ds inksa gsrq f”k{kk “kkL= ¼fo”ks’k f”k{kk½ esa f}o’khZ; fMIyksek mRrh.kZ gksuk vfuok;Z gSA

¶41

10-6 vH;FkhZ }kjk vkosnu izLrqr djus dh fu/kkZfjr vfUre fnukad rd lHkh U;wure ;ksX;rk,as ¼”kS{kf.kd] iz”kS{kf.kd ,oa jktLFkku v/;kid ik=rk ijh{kk vkfn½ vftZr djuk vfuok;Z gSA vkonus dh vfUre frfFk d i”pkr vfts r ;kZ sX;rk ekU; ugh gka xh] ,s ls s vH;Fkh vik= gkZ xs Asa ”

¶42

Neither in the Rules nor in the advertisement, the requirement of prior registration with the RCI has been indicated.

(5 of 7)

[2023:RJ-JD:21199]

[CW-12760/2022]

The requirement of registration as submitted by learned counsel for the respondents arises from the provisions of Act of 1992. The Act of 1992 inter-alia defines Rehabilitation

¶47

Professionals under Section 2 (n) (v) as under:-

¶48

“2. Definitions.-(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-

¶49

(n) “rehabilitation professionals” means-

¶50

(v) special teachers for educating and training the handicapped;”

¶51

Further the relevant provision in this regard is Section 13,

¶52

which insofar as, relevant reads as under:-

¶53

“13. Rights of persons possessing qualifications included in the Schedule to be enrolled.— (1) Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, any qualification included in the Schedule shall be sufficient qualification for enrolment on the Register.

¶54

(2) No person, other than the rehabilitation professional who possesses a recognised rehabilitation qualification and is enrolled on the Register,—

¶55

(a) shall hold office as rehabilitation professional or any such office (by whatever designation called) in Government or in any institution maintained by a local or other authority;

¶56

(b) shall practice as rehabilitation professional anywhere in India;

¶57

(c) shall be entitled to sign or authenticate any certificate required by any law to be signed or authenticated by a rehabilitation professional; (d) shall be entitled to give any evidence in any court as an expert under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) on any matter relating to the handicapped:”

¶58

(emphasis supplied)

¶59

Further Section 19 deals with the registration in register, which indicates the procedure for registration.

¶60

A bare look at the provisions of Section 13, which deals with the right of persons possessing qualification included in the schedule to be enrolled reveals that the same requires that no person other than the rehabilitation professional, who possess a recognized rehabilitation qualification and is enrolled on the register ‘shall hold office’ as rehabilitation

[2023:RJ-JD:21199]

[CW-12760/2022]

(6 of 7)

professional or any such office in Government or any institution maintained by local or other Authority.

¶65

The requirement of the section is clear, wherein, the enrollment on the register is necessary for holding the office.

¶66

In view of the said requirement, it is apparent that it is only when a person is selected and is accorded appointment at that stage, the person requires enrollment and that the requirement, as envisaged by the respondents, though the same does not form part of either of the Rules of 1996 or the advertisement at the stage of making of the application, apparently is dehors the provisions of the Rules of 1996, advertisement and the Act of 1992.

¶67

Admittedly, in the present case, on the date of selection i.e. 17.04.2022, the petitioner was in possession of the registration certificate; not only this in fact the registration certificate is prior to the date of short listing and document verification and in those circumstances, holding the petitioner as ineligible only on account of not having the required registration with RCI till the last date of application cannot be sustained.

¶68

In case, the respondents for any reason had inclination to have the requisite registration till the last date of the application, the said aspect should have been reflected in the advertisement. Once the advertisement is completely silent qua the requirement, which even otherwise is beyond the provisions of the Rules, the rejection of an applicant’s candidature on the said ground cannot be sustained.

[2023:RJ-JD:21199]

[CW-12760/2022]

(7 of 7)

So far as the submission made about the subsequent recruitment being in progress is concerned, this Court had on 02.09.2022 when the petition came up for admission while ordering for supplying the copy to learned AAG had specifically ordered that respondents shall not fill up the post, which became vacant on account of passing of the order dated 04.08.2022 (Annex.13) as such, on account of passing of the said interim order merely on account of the subsequent recruitment in progress cannot deprive the petitioner of questioning the validity of cancellation and consequences thereof.

¶73

In view of the above discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order dated 04.08.2022 (Annex.13) qua the petitioner’s cancellation of candidature is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to accord appointment to the petitioner, if he is otherwise eligible, with all consequential benefits similar to those, who were selected along with the petitioner, as per his inter-se merit. However, the petitioner would be entitled to actual emoluments from the date of his actual appointment.

¶74

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶75

7-pradeep/-

Praveen Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases