Allowed

Pramender Kumar Bhand v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC7 Aug 2023CW/2149/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order cancelling the petitioners' selection for Gr.III Teacher recruitment. It held that appointment was legal as their diploma was obtained from a recognized institute valid at the time of issuance. The stay application was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order cancelling the petitioners' candidature dated 28.08.2018 is hereby quashed.

Pramender Kumar Bhand Vs State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:24987]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2149/2019

¶4

Pramender Kumar Bhand S/o Shri Bhairu Lal, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Asotiya, Kankroli, District Rajsamand, Rajasthan.

¶5

Anil Kumar Vaseeta S/o Shri Har Lal,, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Mali Kheda, Post- Gogathala, Teh. Rail Magra, District Rajsamand, Rajasthan.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶9

Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan. 3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Rajsamand, Rajasthan.

¶10

Rehabilitation Counsel Of India (Rci), Statutory Body Under Ministry Of Social Justice And Empowerment, 22, Qutub Institutional Area, New- Delhi- 110016.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Hemant Shrimali
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Pankaj Sharma, AAG with
	Mr.	Deepak Chandak

¶13

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶14

Order

¶15

07/08/2023

¶16

The matter comes upon for consideration of application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India filed by the respondent-State.

¶17

Having regard to the controversy involved and considering that the issue may have bearing on petitioners’ service career,

[2023:RJ-JD:24987]

[CW-2149/2019]

(2 of 4)

instead of deciding the application, this Court deems it appropriate to hear and decide the petition itself.

¶22

The facts appertain are that the petitioners appeared for the recruitment of Teacher Gr.III Level I (H.I. Category) pursuant to the advertisement dated 12.04.2018 and were selected.

¶23

While submitting the application form, the petitioner No.1 had stated his qualification to be M.A., B.Ed. and Diploma in Community Based Rehabilitation of Persons with Disabilities with Add-on course certificate in Education of Children with special needs and petitioner No.2 stated his qualification to be Senior Secondary and Diploma in Community Based Rehabilitation of Persons with Disabilities with Add-on course Certificate in Education of Children with special needs.

¶24

On the basis of the marks obtained by the petitioners in RTET/REET Level I, the respondents considered the petitioners’ candidature and selected them. The petitioner No.1 was placed at merit No.112 in the merit list while the petitioner No.2 at 21^st place.

¶25

Before the petitioners could join, by way of impugned order dated 28.08.2018, the petitioners’ appointment/selection was cancelled.

¶26

The petitioners immediately preferred a writ petition in which by way of the interim order dated 13.02.2019, the order impugned dated 28.08.2018 cancelling petitioners’ candidature was kept in abeyance by observing thus:

¶27

“In the meanwhile and until further orders, rejection of the petitioners’ candidature by order dated 28.08.2018 (Annex.-14), shall remain stayed and the respondents are directed to deal with the candidature of the petitioners as per the

(3 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JD:24987]

[CW-2149/2019]

allotment of districts made vide order dated 08.06.2018 and permit them to participate in the counseling.”

¶32

Mr. Hemant Shrimali, learned counsel for the petitioner while submitting that the petitioners have done their diploma from the institute recognized by the Bangalore University, argued that the fact that the validity of such course was only for five years cannot be a reason to cancel the petitioners appointment inasmuch, as when the petitioners obtained the diploma, the recognition/affiliation was prevailing or was valid.

¶33

Mr. Pankaj Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General was not in a position to dispute the above facts. 10. Heard.

¶34

It is a fact on record that the petitioners obtained their diploma from an institute recognized by the Bangalore University which was in vogue, when the same was issued. The fact that it was only for a period of five years has no relevance, so long as the petitioners have obtained the same during the period it was in vogue or currency.

¶35

This Court is clearly of the view that the cancellation of the petitioners selection by impugned order dated 28.08.2018 was illegal and contrary to the facts. The same, therefore, deserves to be and is hereby quashed.

¶36

So far as the stand which has been taken by the State in the reply that the diploma which the petitioners had obtained is not approved by the National Council for Teacher Education is concerned, this Court does not deem it expedient to dilate or record any finding thereupon, as the same does not form the basis of the order dated 28.08.2018.

(4 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JD:24987]

[CW-2149/2019]

It will however be open for the Competent Authority to issue notice in this regard to the petitioners (if so advised), indicating the reason as to why the diploma which the petitioners have obtained is not valid in the eye of law.

¶41

In the event of issuance of any notice, the petitioners shall be free to file their reply, whereafter the competent authority of the respondents shall pass reasoned order, against which the petitioners’ right to take appropriate remedies shall stand reserved.

¶42

In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is allowed.

¶43

Stay application stands disposed of.

¶44

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶45

304-AbhishekS/-

Pramender Kumar Bhand v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramender Kumar Bhand 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

Radhey Shyam Pancholi Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Kavita Shrimali Vs Home Secretary

Rameshwar Lal Tiwari Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rajesh Panwar Vs the Secretary

Bapulal Dodiyar Vs State and Ors.

Karan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.