Dismissed

Raghuveer Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC11 Jan 2023CW/3593/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought appointment as Grade-3 Special Teacher relying on retrospective NCTE amendment relaxing qualification marks. Court held that since selection commenced under original notification, retrospective amendment could not apply, dismissing the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Grant of appointment as Grade-3 Special Teacher Social Science (MR/ID) in pursuance of amended NCTE notification was refused; writ petition dismissed.

Raghuveer Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Education and Admissions | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3593/2022

¶3

Raghuveer Singh S/o Shri Bajrang Singh, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Rajputon Ka Vas, Village Rudiya, Post Mehlana, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶7

1. The Director, Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Bikaner.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. D.S. Sodha
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Pankaj Sharma assisted by
	Mr. Dhairyaditya Rathore

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶11

Order

¶12

11/01/2023

¶13

The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer that the petitioner may be appointed on the post of Grade-3 Special Teacher Social Science (MR/ID) in pursuance of the selection process undertaken as per the Notification dated 31.07.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is holding all the requisite qualifications for appointment on the post of Grade-3 Special Teacher Social Science (MR/ID) as the petitioner is having more than 50% marks in the post-graduation. He further submits that although the name of the petitioner was reflected in the provisional list but in the final list his name was not mentioned, therefore, he has preferred this present writ petition seeking appointment on the post mentioned above.

¶14

(2 of 4)

¶15

[CW-3593/2022]

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the amended NCTE Notification, a relaxation and the qualification of securing minimum 50% marks in the graduation level has been reduced and the same was made applicable retrospectively, therefore, the case of the petitioner should be considered in accordance with the amended notification issued by the NCTE for the purpose of consideration of the eligibility criteria for qualifications on the post in question. Since, as per the amended notification issued by the NCTE, the petitioner holds the requisite qualification, therefore, the present writ petition may be allowed and the respondents may be directed to grant appointment to the petitioner on the post of Grade-3 Special Teacher Social Science (MR/ID).

¶17

Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that in the selection process, the qualifications prescribed by the NCTE at the relevant time were taken into consideration and as per those guidelines for appointment on the post of Grade-3 Special Teacher Social Science (MR/ID), a person is required to have at least 50% marks in the graduation besides other qualifications. Since, the petitioner has not secured 50% marks in the graduation though he has secured 50% marks in the post-graduation but as per the notification prevailing at the time of selection, the petitioner was not eligible and thus, he was not appointed on the post of Grade-3 Special Teacher Social Science (MR/ID). He further submits that in pursuance of the advertisement dated 31.07.2018, a part of the selection process was completed and thereafter the amended notification of NCTE had come in the year 2019. Since, in the selection process, the notification prevailing at the point of time

¶18

(3 of 4)

¶19

[CW-3593/2022]

¶20

i.e. year 2018 was taken into consideration and the selection process has already been processed. During the pendency of the same selection process, for completion the balance of the selection process, the amended notification of the NCTE cannot be made applicable.

¶21

Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.1205/2019 (Dinesh Chandra Damor vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) decided on 10.03.2022 & D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 997/2019 (Manilal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) decided on 27.04.2022. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be dismissed.

¶22

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar. The undisputed facts emerge in the present case are that the selection process in pursuance of the advertisement dated 31.07.2018 was processed in accordance with the notification issued by the NCTE prevailing at that point of time and a part of the selection process had already been completed considering the eligibility criteria issued by the NCTE vide its notification in existence at the time of selection. The amendment in the educational qualification was made by the NCTE by issuing a notification dated 13.11.2019. Although the said amended notification issued by the NCTE had been made with retrospective effect however, in the present case the same will not be applicable for the simple reason that part of the selection process had been conducted by the respondents considering the qualification issued by the NCTE before amendment and those candidates who have faced the selection presumably they were qualified as per the criteria laid down by the NCTE at the time of selection which was prevailing in the year

¶23

(4 of 4)

¶24

[CW-3593/2022]

¶25

The amended notification for the purpose of qualification cannot be implied retrospectively in the present selection as the two sets of rules cannot be made applicable in a selection process and, therefore, the amendment made by the NCTE in the eligibility criteria cannot be made retrospectively applicable over the selections in the present case. The relief prayed for by the petitioner in view of the amended amended NCTE guidelines cannot be extended. The writ petition, therefore, lacks merit and the same is dismissed.

¶26

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶27

25-KashishS/-

Raghuveer Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghuveer 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

Mahipal Jain Vs Shri Ajitabh Sharma (Ias)

Jitendra Singh Vs Shri Manju Rajpal

Meenakshi Choubisa Vs Naveen Mahajan and Ors.

Mukeshee Vs State of Rajasthan

Ram Singh Constable (Driver) No. 1003 (Retd) Vs the State of Rajasthan

Jitendra Sharma Vs the State of Rajasthan